Most of think of social media through our marketing lens eyes. As we should. That’s likely its greatest use. But the reality is that social media encompasses so much. Or more importantly, it will soon touch on most internal business operations.

That’s why I wrote that latest post. We seem, in our attempts to define it, to be actually inadvertently limiting it. Much of our call-to-change, if implemented, could result in ineffective disjointed efforts that lead to disappointment and even failure.

I just read a great report from Aberdeen Research, Customer 2.0: The Business Implications of Social Media. Aberdeen determined from its research that there were three levels of adoption, Best in Class (20%) are those organizations whose practices are significantly superior to the industry standard, resulting in more successful implementation. Industry Average (50%) are exactly that. Average adaptation, average performance. Laggards (30%) suffer from poor performance because of lower than average adaptation of social media. Both Industry Average and Laggards are divided between companies that are looking to improve their standing and those that are apparently satisfied with their status quo or lack the vision to improve.

From the report I’m garnering several trends that are impacting levels of success…

Need for executive buy in should extend to culture change when needed

Usually the need for executive buy in is something we take for granted. If upper management is resistant to something, it’s not likely to happen. In the study, that’s reaffirmed, but I noticed something more.

The buy in must extend to action. Social media adoption can mean wholesale change. It can affect several departments. Executive buy-in in the form of lip service is useless.

Case in point. While almost two thirds of laggards (65%) say that Web 2.0 applications are a top two or of the highest priority, only 37% of them report that they’ve received full support from senior level management, and that only 13% of them have developed internal processes to implement, manage, and analyze the applications. These are the companies that will soon be in the Industry Average category. The other 87% aren’t so lucky.

The 65-37-13 discrepancy is telling. It shows a significant detachment between what could be a stated vision and the will to carry it out. It shows me that a large percentage of the Laggards are going to stay where they are. One of the key factors that Aberdeen found, in the successful implementation of Web 2.0 applications is having established coordinated internal processes. If only 13% of respondents say their organization has some sort of program in place, but yet 65% say that Web 2.0 is a priority, then a lot of the 37% of those leaders who are said to be supportive of Web 2.0 either aren’t, or they simply arent’ doing their jobs.

Social media via Web 2.o applications is too cross-functional to be implemented department by department. Sure, an organization can have a praised social media marketing effort, but will that really change a corporate culture?

Process implementation problems mean Steve Rubel’s prediction won’t come anytime soon. But still take heed.

A couple of months ago, Steve Rubel surmised that the job title/descripiton of Social Media consultant will be going away in a few years. He reasoned that as organizations become more Web 2.0 ready and adopt soicla media throughout the entity, the duties and responsibilities of the consultant will disperse as well…in fact they’ll disperse so much that they’ll dissipate when it comes to the defined role of a social media consultant.

I actually think he’s onto something in that today’s worker will be soon enough equipped with social media skills for fulfilling social media duties and responsibilities that today’s consultant will be quite different from tomorrow’s. Setting up blog, wikis, and podcasts could easily be handled in house.

But if only 87% of Laggards,76% of Industry Average, and 63% of Best in Class at this point DO NOT have a process in place, then we a a long ways away from the death of the social media consultant. But wait…

Social media agencies will have to become more full service. They’ll have to adopt larger corporate practices that go beyond setting up Facebook accounts and reaching out to bloggers. They’ll need to fully understand how a social media marketing effort effects sales and then how customer services must respond, by using social media by this (hopeful) increase in sales. So social media strategist may be less hip, but in the end, more useful.

Dedicated cross-functional teams are needed, meaning the nexus of controlling responsibility must be fluid.

If you’re in one of the company considered by a Laggard, you’ve got company. Aberdeen found that 86% of the Laggards don’t have dedicated personnel to work on social media initiatives. A few people working a few hours here and there. That’s not going to work. Social media will be changing corporate and organizations culture.

In most organizations, social media will be implemented across several department that interact with customers or clients, vendors, investors, the media, and employees. The level of implementation of Web 2.0 applications will vary according to the size of the organization, the industry it is in, the specific needs of each department within the organization and with the organization as a whole. The implementation of social media on a strategic level, with its technological components and human interaction focus means that it can’t be done on a cookie cutter basis. Teams must be created knowing that their success depends on a large scale collaborative effort.

Collaboration means cooperation. Each division will have its own needs, its own level of adoption and adaption. Some of that adoption will be reliant on adoption as a whole.

Here again, is where I part with Jason Falls’ belief that social media come under the control of public relations. Internal leaders must develop and they must see across the entire enterprise. But then again, I already wrote about that.

More importantly, at this stage of the game, management must cultivate internal resources in creating great teams to lead the way into the age of social media.

The current legal battle between Viacom and Google/YouTube is going to have significant ramifications beyond today’s headlines.  It’s getting surprisingly little play amongst much of the social media digerati, but it’s something we all need to be aware of.

The lawsuit and the proceedings around it are truly a sign of the times.  It’s a direct outgrowth of what we’ve been emerging via the internet over the past several years.  Sites such as YouTube have essentially become free communicative vehicles to not only view, but  share and alter video productions of all types.  The concept of “share” is important because most of us use it.  But in reality, it is a nice way of saying “distribute”.  And from distribute comes distribution – a fundamental with tremendous legal ramifications.

Alter is a tough one too.  The “mash-ups” that many in social media and digital marketing talk of enthusiastically can be as problematic.  As, I guess, it should be.  At least in some cases.  An artist creates an original piece of work.  Then distributes it, usually netting some sort of financial gain.  Others take it, and now because of new tools can alter it and redistribute it.  Many times this new process leads to lost potential revenue for the original artist.

Basically what has happened was that YouTube became extremely popular practically overnight.  So now we have tens of thousands of people posting videos – videos that may be copyrighted material (or at least contain copyrighted material).  Interested parties on the original creative/distribution side sort of stood by, trying to figure what to make of it.  That means artist, recording studios and major distributors.  Sometimes it makes sense to let things slide.  Other times it means lost revenue.  Copyright infringement.  But how the major players handle themselves at this juncture will probably set precedents for years to come.

All of this brouhaha is a result of overlapping laws, revenue distribution models, current legal precedents in related industries, and perhaps most importantly, the determination by key players to establish new legal precedents and business processes.

Part of the problem is that there is little established law beyond the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) that establishes a foundation to base anything on.  Consequently, it’s been up to the courts to decide what it legal and what it not.  This puts all parties in a bind because the likely solutions could create a lot of losers.

Currently, web properties that entail copyrighted digital content are required to get two licenses from interested parties.  One is a reproduction license from the record company as the record company often has sole rights for reproduction.  The second is a public performance license from the performers and/or their agent representatives.

But the problem is that its not that YouTube is getting those licenses them selves and then showing the videos – videos that can’t be downloaded and distributed.  The problem is that anyone can take a copyrighted video and uploaded it up to YouTube.  Now the video can be distributed as others can now download it.

Representatives of the music and entertainment industries are thus saying that YouTube would thus need a distribution license as well.  And these arguments have been paying off in court.  YouTube is acting as an enabler, intended or not.

It’s not as if Google and YouTube have been sitting still in all this, letting everything stupidly happen.  They’ve already reached agreements on  reproduction with major music labels and artist representatives.  But that, of course, doesn’t address distribution models.

YouTube is making some efforts – but it’s the nature of their business model that’s hurting them on this.  And the popularity of the service.

For one, they limit the time allowed for videos to 10 minutes.  This way, whole programs can’t be recorded and posted.  YouTube has also set up a “content identification system” that allows a content owner to set up a “reference file” on copyrighted work which enables YouTube to locate exact matches between a piece of copyrighted work and something that is posted.  The problem there is that anything can be altered, and alterations (those pesky “mashups” can throw the system off.  Once YouTube identifies a piece of copyrighted material, they then contact the artists and productions studios to inquire as to whether or not it should be removed.

Those that continually upload copyrighted material will be asked to stop, and if they fail to do so, can have their YouTube account suspended.

All in all, YouTube seems to be doing all it can to stop all of this.  But the current technological capabilities, coupled with the site’s enormous popularity have made it impossible to really have an effective system in place.  At least in the mindset of companies like Viacom.

In my last post, I talked of the coming disruption of the three way relationship between marketer, agency, and media property. Essentially it centers on the idea that marketers (who are often behind themselves) are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the lack of digital savvy of their agencies and are now turning to media properties for strategic ideas and creative capabiliites. And these media properties are making themselves all the more ready, willing, and able to carry out the needs and wishes of the marketers.

I believe that that’s happening. But there’s still a big problem with that model. Consistent brand messaging

On a micro-level, this new way of doing things makes perfect sense. Crafting an marketing campaign tailored to the offerings of an online property could maximize the effectiveness of the campaign itself. For that media property.

But last I looked, most advertisers don’t use all their spend on one property. They’ll pick many properties in many channels. They’ll test here and there. They’ll sometimes concentrate on branding, sometimes concentrate on direct , sometimes (and the web makes this more possible, concentrate on both.

If the marketer – the company that is the end client – has to tailor each of its marketing messages to that of the publisher, chaos could result.

Publishers will need to realize this and further expand their services, sort of becoming almost full service for their advertisers. But still, this still could run into brand confusion as each publisher will owe it to their paying client to create the most effective campaign for their specific property or properties, leaving potentially different and confusing brand messages across several media properties.

Wise agencies should see this as the window of opportunity and work with publishers before they even get clients to formulate the framework for effective marketing campaigns that can perform very effectively over a cross section of properties and platforms.

Me too.

You want to get back to the show, the game, the newscast. See the bad guy get his ass nailed, the final two minutes of the tight game, or news on the latest scoop on the election cycle. The last thing you want to see is a series of presentations about pills that can make you pee better, a car that supposedly makes you cool, and a law firm that chases ambulances.

Me too.

But every once and a while, you’ll watch something that will catch your eye. It will make you laugh. Chuckle inside. You’ll be able to relate to it. Or you’ll be impressed because it’s impressive, not because the commercial is trying to pretend that it’s impressive with itself. Or you’ll think, shit, how did they do that?

Me too.

If that’s what happens, then that’s a commercial that will likely end up on Firebrand.

Firebrand is a client of ours. We’re proud to have them. They’re a new media outlet – literally. We’re proud to have them. They’re a new media outlet – literally. They’re on the web at ‘re on the web at http://www.firebrand.com and on the ION network on cable in 95 million homes. They seek out and get the world’s best commercials and play them, MTV style. From the States, Britain, Malaysia, Canada, Australia, India.

Now, let’s talk football. Let’s talk the Super Bowl. I could go off on a tangent and first talk about the great commercials, but I’m a lifelong fanatical New England Patriots fan so to me, this Sunday means football. I had to get that in.Allright, so lets’s talk about those about great commercials that the Super Bowl is known for. They get plenty of press beforehand. People do stop and watch them and they then talk about them the next day. They remember them. And they wish that all TV ads were that good.

We’ll, this week Firebrand will be celebrating ads of Super Bowls past all week long. Then on Monday, February 4th, they’ll be hosting “Firebrand Monday”, showing all the ads from the previous day’s Big Game. Viewers will be treated to the likes of Terry Tate, Office Linebacker and Carmen Electra

Here’s the lineup for the week.

Monday January 28th: “BIG TIME ATHLETES” in classic Big Game commercials

Tuesday January 29th: “BIG BUDGET PRODUCTIONS” for classic Big Game commercials

Wed January 30th: “CHICKS IN CHARGE” in classic Big Game commercials

Thursday January 31st: “BIG TIME CELEBRITIES” in classic Big Game commercials

Friday February 1st: “BIG TIME BRANDS” in classic Big Game commercials

Monday February 4th: IT’S FIREBRAND MONDAY, THE DAY AFTER THE BIG GAME – CELEBRATE THE HOLIEST DAY IN ADVERTISING WITH THE OFFICE LINEBACKER, CARMEN ELEKTRA AND CLASSIC BIG GAME COMMERCIALS!

I recently got to thinking about the article Chip Griffin wrote last month in MediaBistro. It was called “Throwing Out the Social Media Rulebook” and it created quite a stir. Some even got a little hostile.

I agree with all he wrote in that some in this open environment are creating certain rules suddenly come about that many say we must adhere to. Often by the most strident voices. But some of those same voices, while strident, make sense.

One of Chip’s points caught my eye. Actually they all did, but this one in particular:

2. It Isn’t a Blog Without Comments. Hogwash. Do comments often make blog posts better? Absolutely. Can you learn things from reading them that you might not have learned from the original post? Sure. Do comments help build a relationship between reader and author? Of course. But you can have a great blog without comments. Marc Andreesen of Netscape fame pens a fantastic example, but the zealots would dismiss it as inauthentic. And note how this idea clashes with the previous rule the zealots profess about RSS – when you read a blog via RSS you don’t even see the comments.

Now I agree with his basic point. A person can have a blog and not allow comments. Consider that word: allow. The word allow signifies a choice. It means, in a sense, “permission”. He mentioned Mark Andreesen. Others pointed out Seth Godin. Who are we to say what HAS to be when it comes to someone else’s choices or ‘property’? It’s their blog, it’s their creation.

But then I got to thinkin’…

People like Andreesen and Godin are gurus. Their words carry weight. Often, the fact that a ‘guru’ says something gives what he or she says instant credibility. Even if it what they say is crap. Rockstars have devoted groupies will often automatically agree with a rockstar. Yet, I’ve also seen plenty of points raised by non-gurus that are quite brilliant…but go nowhere because they ain’t a rockstar.

But here’s the problem. When a guru has a mega blog and is pontificating on subjects and writes books or heads up conferences or is a ‘go-to’ guy or gal for the media, they are, in essence, creating the foundations of much of the subsequent conversations that we all then have. They act as ambassadors to the outside business communities…you know, the ones that we hope to get as clients.

If one of the primary ways they pontificate (besides book writing and speaking at conferences, etc.) is their blog, and their blog writing could be greatly affecting the direction of the foundations and methodologies of the strategies the we all will use, and the flows of conversations that we all will have, then I’d say that by not allowing comments, they making an active choice to not allow us to contribute to that conversation on the same level. They are not making any attempt to learn from us, to, well, engage us in a conversation - one of the fundamentals of social media. It sorta smacks of arrogance.

That’s because we can’t challenge them. We can’t call them out when we disagree. We can ‘t point out flaws in their thinking. What they say or write may carry significant weight, but it may be all wrong and we can’t point that out. By being able to point out flaws in the blogger gurus reasoning, the guru might have to defend themselves.

What they are blogging about may be self-serving and we don’t know it, so we can’t engage them (and others). In other words, they may say that a trend is coming and that may or may not be the case, but they have a product/service/company that would benefit from this trend. So they talk it up, create a buzz…and presto! They’ve may have laid the groundwork for a new trend and they further established their status as a guru. Yet we can’t challenge them.

Is it that they are above being challenged?

Now I don’t know Marc Andreeson or Seth Godin. So I’m not willing to apply the term arrogant to either one. But real gurus should allow us the challenge them. To engage us in conversation. They should give us permission to do so. Otherwise they don’t have great blogs. They’ve got great online newsletters.

The culture of participatory social media is having some surprisingly significant effects on both the way satisfied customers play a role in contributing to the marketing message development of products and services. And it is also playing an increasingly important role in defining the key touchpoints that customers use in the deciding factors one what to purchase. What makes this all the more noteworthy is that much of this is rooted in offline purchases. I’m putting this together from two recent studies…

As we all know, a satisfied customer can often be your most effective marketing vehicle. This has become all the more apparent as Bazaarevoice found in a survey they completed for Keller Fay, the word of mouth marketing agency based out of Atlanta. They found that 79% of reviewers write reviews to reward a company for the quality of the product or service they bought, with 87% of the reviews being positive in tone. Positive experiences mean greater customer involvement.

This means that satisfied customers see the idea of writing online reviews as an important part of their product/service experience. That’s backed up by the fact that in the same survey, 90% of the respondents write the reviews to help others make better buying decisions. Social media allows them to ’share the love’ so to speak. The survey also points out that 70% see contributing to online reviews as a means to help a company improve what they offer. If this is the case, then we’ve got the initial stages of what many are calling a ‘community’.

The significance of that point shouldn’t be underestimated. Social media marketers are constantly talking about community. Sometimes I think they overdo it. That’s because I think they believe exists in the first place. It doesn’t. But customer reviews are one way in which they begin.

That becomes more important when you realize that comScore and the Kelsey Group found that reviews written by fellow consumers had a greater impact on the buying decisions of potential buyers than that of professional reviewers. And this no small point: 97% of review readers fine the reviews they read to be accurate. So, the quality of the reviews by fellow users is not compromised by a lack of ‘expertise’ in writing reviews. With more than three-quarters of review readers saying that their reading of someone else’s opinion on a product or service effected their decision to make a purchase, online review are now completely mainstream They are part of customer relations, message development, and community formulation. In short, an ecommerce strategy must include happy customers.

And just how can this affect the touchpoints as to the reasoning behind a purchase. comScore helps us out again by pointing out that people were willing to pay 20% ore for an Excellent, or 5-star rating, than they were a Very Good or Good 4-star rating. The survey doesn’t stipulate the percentage of people that feel this way however. But it does show that for (likely) price is not necessarily a huge factor when it comes to top quality. I say that because a 4-star rating is still very positive.

It should also be pointed out that offline purchases are really pushing this. Bazarrevoice found that of their respondents, 65% of them had, after purchasing offline, had gone back online to write a review. So it is not necessarily technology insiders. It’s broader than that.

I keep on trying to legitimize the reasons that Facebook is using to justify their new marketing program, “Facebook Beacon”. But it’s just not happening. It keeps on coming back to user relationships, user privacy, and user benefit. You know, the USER.

If you’re not sure what Beacon is, it’s basically this. Facebook is setting up agreements with online retailers that aren’t part of Facebook to have the retailer directly send information of what people buy on the retailer site to their “friends” on Facebook. The user is first supposed to see a notice on the retail site for which they need to give the thumbs down if they object. So the system is supposed to be opt out. But there’s been some circumstances where the information is just automatically sent without approval or even notification of the buyer. That means the next time you buy a book from Amazon or an item from Overstock.com, the retailer could end up letting your friends know what you bought unless you explicitly stop it.

Facebook is positioning this as the way of advertising because it essentially involves word of mouth as a strengthening agent to traditional display. I see it as an overreaching policy designed to push the envelope that much further to see how they can monetize user experience.

This whole thing rubs me the wrong way. It is part of the continual losing of control of our privacy, done with a smile, assuring us of the neat new opportunities it will bring. Not all agree with me here. I’m reading plenty of comments of people saying that they don’t mind the idea of letting their friends know what they buy. But when I hear that, I say, fine. Then keep it opt in. Not opt out. I’m thinking those that have no objections to this sort of thing are thinking strictly of their own personal preferences in buying and the relationships that they have with their Facebook friends. And they might be of the mindset that what they do off Facebook is free game. Since I read marketing blogs, I’m also reading the comments of marketing types…not necessarily someone outside of the industry. My hunch is that most that feel that Beacon is no big deal are relatively young. As people age, they often get more private. And the demographics of Facebook is getting older as it grows.

Matthew Ingram feels as if the opposition to this is being overblown. I can’t agree. Take the case of Charlene Li. Charlene is none other than an internet analyst with Forrester. Not exactly a newbie. She recently recounted an experience she had when she bought a coffee table from Overstock.com. She hopped online, went to the site, and ordered the table, using her personal email as opposed to her one from Forrester. It should be pointed out that she has two profiles on Facebook. One for professional reasons that’s tied to her Forrester email and one a personal profile that’s tied into her personal email. The next time she logged into Facebook, she did so onto her Facebook profile. Maybe because it was the first she logged onto, she received this:

She points out that Overstock.com never let her opt out of this. Or that she didn’t see anything that would allow her to opt out. Either way, Overstock sent it without her permission. The second part is that they sent it to her professional profile, not her personal one. Even thought she had used her personal email. That’s because Beacon is cookie/browser based.

This brings us to my first objection of user relationships. While I’m buying a particular item on a particular online retail site, I do so because of my desire for that product and for my trust of or relationship with that store. I’m not thinking of my friends and colleagues on Facebook when I press the buy button. But now Facebook and the retailer have decided that Facebook is now going to play a role.

When I’m on Facebook, I know I’m within a somewhat closed off setting…a social network. My relationship is with Facebook and with what is within Facebook. That’s fine. That’s cool. But when I head to, say, Amazon, my relationship there is with Amazon. Not Facebook. But apparently, Facebook and Amazon have decided together that I now have a relationship with Facebook when I buy that book that I want.When I buy a product from a local retailer (an actual store, you know, a physical one), I’m a customer of that retailer and not the local newspaper. I don’t expect the store to then send a press release to the local newspaper about what I just bought and then get a phone call from a reporter asking me to approve of them putting the news in the paper. Screw that.

Beacon potentially violates the relationships that we form online. Ones that we in social media marketer so often say are built on trust and respect. Oddly, this happens with the retailer’s involvement. Facebook could easily come off as intruding into that relationship. This shouldn’t be underestimated. In a time that we’re talking about “listening” we’re talking respect.

Justin Smith of Inside Facebook sees this as a rehash of an earlier bump in the road that Facebook had to deal with. That particular bump involved the debut of Facebook’s news feed, which informs our friends what we do on within Facebook. Justin also points out that opposition to that was 10 times larger in sheer numbers.

Justin, if you read this, I’d answer you on those two points the following way. First, I’d say that that initial opposition, while maybe justified was probably mollified by the understanding many would have that they’re receiving many benefits within the site and that the news feed application is a legitimate price to pay…because the feed is about what’s happenig within the site and not outside. And your point on numbers it correct and may be legit, but I’d say part of the reason could be that most people probably found out about within a couple of weeks of in being installed. All they had to do was log onto Facebook and they’d see a newsfeed. The quick, collective discovery of this probably fueled the flame.

But what we have here will be much more drawn out. People will be finding out over time. Perhaps thousands each day. Enough to build steam but not enough to have every one know about it over a couple of weeks. But then again, the holiday season is upon us…

This brings me my second point, which is probably the underlying one of all. User privacy. It’s not anyone’s business as to whether or not Charlene bought a coffee table, regardless of how we know her. That’s, of course, unless Charlene want us to know. This new system shouldn’t force her to take an extra step to make sure that her buying habits are private. She didn’t invite Facebook to be that part of her personal or professional life.

Think about it. Say a closeted gay man who lives in a relatively conservative area goes to Amazon and buys a couple of books on coming out of the closet. Amazon doesn’t notify him that they’re sending this info to his Facebook friends because of the same glitch that happened to Charlene. Now, KABOOM!, he’s out of the closet. Everyone know. Probably before he has any clue as to what happens. Now his life sucks. Screw that.

Or you may have a woman who recently found she has a sexually transmitted disease. She’s horrified, terrified. Doesn’t want anyone to know. She buys a book about it on Amazon. She’s so scared, she doesn’t see the notice on Amazon that this info is being sent to Facebook. After all, the notice was never there before. Now her ‘friends’ know…from her actual friends to her business colleagues. Screw that.

Follow up:  I had read on TechCrunch that Amazon is part of Beacon.  Alas, it isn’t.  Wanted to strike the above two paragraphs as a result.  My bad.

Maybe you got a buy who happily just ordered an engagement ring for his wonderful girlfriend. Kinda nervous when he does. Doesn’t notice that small notice on the retail site. Now he’s planning a big surprise for her. This is a once in a lifetime event. Being a romantic at heart, he’s gonna make it special. He’s going to take her to the best restaurnat in town. And while he’s there, he’s going to take her out on the balcony overlooking the sun setting over the river and OOPS! The whole world now knows, including his sweetheart. Great way for a girl to find out he’s popping the question. Screw that.

The possibilities are endless. And they’re waiting to happen.

But Facebook and the retailer are now benefiting from this. They’re making money from this new ad system. But what about us? What is the user benefit?

I don’t see any. I really don’t. We will become marketing agents for retailers and products without sharing a piece of the pie. We won’t be getting a commission. We won’t be getting discounts from the retailer. We won’t be having a more robust experience on Facebook because of this. No, we’re being monetized at the loss of our privacy and convenience. Our newfeeds will be filled up with nonsensical news that people bought coffee tables or bird cages or books on how to leave an abusive husband. No user benefit in that.

This brings me to a fourth objection. What happens to the data? What happens to the info that Facebook receives? Retailers house the info from the data to strengthen the relationships they have with their customers. Now Facebook has it. They are looking to monetize its users. Will the data be shared with fourth parties? Remember, Facebook is the third party here. Will the gay guy suddenly start getting ads that appeal to the gay community? Will this happen when he’s at work? Will someone else get the same ads if he quickly checks his profile on a shared computer and someone else logs on to Facebook ten minutes later?

In other words, will the results of all of this info end up being public? Screw that.

This morning I read two important posts written by Greg Sterling on his blog Screenwerk. One is Nielsen – WebVisible Data on Local Search. The other is New Findings on SMBs and User Reviews. It left me more and more convinced how local businesses must view the internet as a marketing and business development source, and as a customer relations and reputation management tool.

Now I’m combining the results of two surveys both taken on line, so bear with me but Greg teamed with Opus Research and AllBusiness.com to put forward a survey that netted them 1200 respondents. AllBusiness.com’s users and members are SMBs (small & medium businesses). Of those 1200, 55% said that they had a website. That figure is smaller that I would expect – which is a good sign. That’s because it means that it probably wasn’t heavily populated by web savvy or tech oriented companies.

Now the Nielsen-WebVisible survey found that 86% said that they had used the Internet to find a local business to actually shop at. And as far as usage, 78% responded that they use the internet more today to find a local business than they had done two years previously and that an additional 20% use it the same amount. Combined, that’s 98%. Wow.

What we’re seeing is that a significantly large (and getting larger) percentage of people – people who are looking to conduct some sort of business- use the internet to locate businesses within the category of the product and/or service of what they need…on a local basis.

This obviously underscores the tremendous need today for SMBs to have websites. Not having one is ludicrous. But it also points to the fact that, in today’s arena, it PAYS to develop an online marketing plan for one’s SMB. It should include SEO and SEM for most. Banners at times. Email marketing to current customers. Each business will have different needs and all of these methods may not apply, but we also find out from the Nielsen-WebVisible survey that 52% use telephone directories less now than they did two years ago. Disclosure: I still use mine and have no plans to use it less.

Now there’s going to be a gap here. And the gap is that many smaller businesses mistakenly view advertising as an expense. And they’ll go for the tried and true. Yellow pages and flyers. Or they’ll rely on something that is very effective, but may not be enough: word of mouth.

To be sure, in Greg’s survey, 60% of the repondents said that more than 50% of their business comes from referrals. And 30% said that more than 75% come from that same source. You won’t find me dissing WOM…

…so I’ll say this. I think a lot of business owners put too much stock in their product and/or service and rely on word-of-mouth…which while being very effective can be very slow. Which is why I think they’ll need to invest in some online strategies.

But going back to WOM, we see the internet is increasingly playing a major role. Greg also found out that 64% or respondents knew of online review sites and that 30% regularly check these reviews. About one-quarter of them said that these reviews led to new business.

So people are searching for and finding local business via the internet. They are then reading (or writing) online reviews. More evidence that developing an online strategy is becoming ever more important.

Close to 60% of respondents felt that customer reviews are “a good thing and help us improve our business”. Improve means that a business sort of has a free focus group online. And then it adds their favorite marketing tool…word-of-mouth.

Now a lot of Greg’s respondents not only recognize the importance of these reviews, they apparently understand that it’s important to address – no, wait, I’ll say that word – ENGAGE – their customers/reviewers because over 50% had contacted unhappy customers to address complaints. That’s a very smart thing to do.

This brings me to a final point. Online reputation management. Still today, with 45% of the respondents here without website, it shows that many SMBs are very much behind the eight ball. Because a company doesn’t have a website, or they have one that one of the officer’s nephews built four years ago, doens’t mean that they’re not being talked about online. And, if you are a business owner, you want to be the most prominent, the most central web presence out there.

I see a tremendous opportunity for not only local search, but local marketing, bizdev, and customer/business relation management that’s going on RIGHT NOW.

Yet another digital concept has gone from being brand new and cool to become a substantial business concept that’s actually worth something. Google, continuing on its path of empire-like growth has snapped up Jaiku, one of today’s microblogging platforms that are compatible with both internet and mobile technologies.

To some, the concept of microblogging may seem silly. And it can be – people messaging one another that they just saw, say, a chicken cross the road. But, in actuality, it is and it will be so much more than that.

It seems to me that there are two types of people who use services such as Jaiku, Twitter, and Pownce. People from late teens to mid-twenties – future trend setters. And techno-savvy business oriented types – current trend setters. The young will use Jaiku to let their friends know what they’re up to or what they’re doing or what they’ve just discovered. And today’s tapped-into influencers will do the same, only at a higher level. It is a new way of personal one-to-many communication…in real time.

Google didn’t just buy the technology or current user base. They bought and entered into this new culture. I liken this to Google’s purchase of Blogger.com a few years back. A blogging platform for personal expression. Now, they’ve built up an affinity of potentially millions of users. And I bet most of them have gmail addresses. Addresses that can now be monetized.

What’s more, is that Jaiku is essentially made for mobile phones. In case you haven’t noticed, cell phones are now part of people’s daily wardrobe. And remember, Google is looking to get into the phone business somehow. This only enhances their move.

Kelly Mooney has a great piece in AdAge, For Relevance, Think Three Way, in which she talks about the concept of ‘triangulation’ involving the brand, the customer, and the community and that all three need to embrace one another. She also blogs at MooneyThinks.

She’s quite right in that, for many of us, we’ve moved much of our media gathering experience online. Websites, blogs, social networks, forums are the areas that we discuss brands or experiences with brands or our impressions of brands.

Kelly calls on companies to shift from “B to C” over to “B to We”. An excellent example she gives is the “Pink” campaign from Victoria’s Secret that targeted young women. She writes

The recent star-studded PJ Party, promoted through Facebook, street teams and in-store, included flash-mob experiences via SMS announcements about free merchandise and a mobile photo application that enabled partygoers to see themselves on the stage’s LED screen, and it culminated in a free Fergie concert. The destination site featured a real-time mobile photo blog from the party and a dance-video-upload contest set to Fergie’s latest hit, where Pink fans voted on who should win a shopping spree and have her video featured on VSPink.com. Through triangulated communications, the brand is extended from offline to online, viral and mobile, and to an increasingly “qualified” audience.

I can’t disagree with this concept but, I’m often left wondering…how many brands can actually engage their customers? How many brands are able to cause that much passion? How many brands can develop or, for that matter, find an actual online community?

That’s a question that most of us haven’t asked yet.