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.

With all the discussion on what social media is, what it’s future will be like, who will control it, I often feel we fail to see the forest for the trees.

I see it as too diverse of a phenomenon to pin down with one easy definition. Its applications go far beyond the neat capsules that can be used to pick a particular department or function that should “own” it. Social media is creating, empowering, and accompanying a paradigm shift in the way we use all media.

Are we fully there yet? Of course not. These are only the early stages, part of an evolutionary process that often comes step by step. But those steps are happening and happening and soon we’ll look back and be amazed how far we’ve traveled. Then before we know it again, we’ll be stepping again and look back again and we’ll be amazed how much we’ve come from that first time we looked back.

Yes, organizations are going to have to harness social media in ways that they can benefit from, to reach ROI. This means trying to create some sort of structure for it without “siloizing” it. Very difficult indeed.

I’ve tried to lay out what I see social media as. Not from a specific definitional standpoint, but from a several miles up point of view.

Interested in your feedback…

Social media can be a practice within itself

Social media’s possibilities extend beyond any traditional established practice (advertising, PR, sales, etc.) to the point that it can be a practice within itself. It can be spread across many departments and, thus, will often need practitioners who can implement coordinated efforts within an organization. The strategic methods used will often have enough attributes on a stand alone basis that it shouldn’t come underneath the heading of another specific department. I’d put social media on the same par as advertising and PR. Full service social media firms have sprouted up such as Abraham Harrison to meet today’s needs.

Social media can be a service

Because social media is still in its nascent stages, clients and potential clients don’t always need comprehensive solution packages. They may need to know how to set up a blog and how to get traffic for it. Simple as that. Helping a company to start a blog is a service. So is creating a podcast. Many clients look to cherry pick services to satisfy their needs. For some in social media, providing a non-coordinated menu of services is where it’s at. While social media agencies are an emerging industry, there’s not widespread demand quite yet, leaving many practitioners as service providers.

Social media is strategy based

A company decides to let go of some (but not all) control of its marketing communications message. It views its customers and users on a somewhat equal level and not as blocks of ears to be shouted at and throats to have messages shoved down.

Another company uses blogs to work with customers to improve products or come up with new ones.

These are strategic changes that are being implemented. Social media can change the nature of an organization because it changes the way an organization looks at itself and its relationships with its stakeholders.

Therefore the strategy behind social media empowers change like nothing else can.

Social media is tactically based

The many tools of social media can be designed to manage a problem or a series of problems. That’s not something that necessarily changes an organization. It’s can implemented based strictly upon need.

This can cause a lot of frustration amongst social media strategists as we see a lot of potential opportunities for business not being fulfilled. For others, applying tactics itself is an opportunity. A foot in the door.

Social media is technology based

Social media can involve a host of technologies that are often complicated to learn and understand. Setting up RSS feeds, monitoring online conversations, designing a blog for better SEM, putting together a widget. It takes technical know how to implement much of these. And that’s a reason why so many ad agencies and especially PR firms have been resistant in adopting social media.

But the technology is constantly changing, adapting, growing, as is the myriad of ways they can be used for clients. It often takes someone who is comfortable with technology to succeed.

Social Media is theory based

Authenticity. Transparency. Community. Engagement. Listening. Give up some of your control. All constantly espoused by social media strategists. These are theories that often go against the grain of traditional thought. More on engagement and less on contrived messaged, push on people. This blog post is theoretical. The theories formulate the methodologies that are behind the practices and the services.

These theories are why so many of us blog and offer our opinions and commentaries. It’s why we read one another’s blogs, friend one another on Facebook and follow one another on Twitter.

Social media is rule based

Aren’t authentic or transparent? Watch out! You’re gonna get nailed by someone in the blogosphere and it will cost you. An instant case study as to how NOT do something. The rules of the game were collectively created and enforced.

We’ve seen traditional agencies, large and small, ignore these rules and push ahead with fake blogs and such. Ask the folks at Edelman and Zipatoni.

Social media is anti-bureaucratic

This may be one of the most important points of all. Because its capabilities go beyond the silos of the current corporate communications, because the public arena can embrace it as their own, because it is always changing, and because it involves giving up a serious amount of self control, social media bucks the bureaucratic structure within organizations while it fundamentally changes the relationship between the organization and its stakeholders.

Online as a whole can shift between advertising and PR, causing disruption. Social media adds to this by bringing in customers, users, and in some cases, communities into the mix. It resists authority when the authority becomes too controlling. And authority usually wants control.

Organizational bureaucracies will be changing soon enough because of social media.

Social media can be vertical – part 1

Again, I see social media as being often a separate animal from traditional PR and advertising. For that matter, online advertising itself first created that difference. Social media extends that difference. It has its own methodologies that are totally separate from offline advertising. The divisions here may not be silo based; but often the pool of knowledge for success in the social media arena can’t be found in traditional types.

Simply sticking it under a particular division within an organization can cause stifled growth as it will be badly nurtured by people with a particular preconceived mindset.

Social media can be vertical – part 2

It’s vertical in another manner as well. And this is more of a prediction than a statement of the current conditions, but we will soon see more and more specialized firms pop up that will be geared toward certain segments of the population. Just as there are agencies that are geared toward the Latino market and PR firms that are geared toward the GLBT communities, we’ll see social media agencies that have developed the expertise in reaching out to certain segments of the population. All you have to do is listen to the many mommy bloggers that complain about their constantly getting hit by pitches from agencies that have no clue on what it’s like being a mom.

Social media can be horizontal – part 1

From what we all hear, social media will have implications in advertising, public relations, sales, customer service, human resources, investor relations etc. It will take an enterprise wide strategy to implement all of that. And it will take an actual social media strategist who understands all of those departments and who understands the technologies behind social media to devise a plan for that enterprise. He or she will have to be strong enough to lead the way and manage a lot of personalities, but gentle enough to let each department blossom.

Social media can be horizontal – part 2

Outside organizations, agencies such as Abraham Harrison and others will continue to emerge and become successful because they will stay on the forefront of all that is happening and how it should be applied. Companies won’t have the internal expertise nor will they have the time nor the personnel to implement cross functional social media strategies.

So, just as we see ad agencies and PR firms today, we’ll continue to see social media agencies. There will definitely be a need for them.

Social media is push

Yes, social media still allows you to deliver marketing messages. It can be the conversation starter. A blog can be push as can a podcast. Maybe this is obvious but I’ve heard so much talk about sitting back an listening I wanted to add this. Yes, social media can be overtly promotional. It just has to be done right.

Social media is pull

Yes, listening is important. Then engaging is important. Done right it creates trust. Trust is pull. Pull is good. Social media is good.

Social Media can be web presence centric and dispersed at the same time

No need to dis the hub of a website. Core elements of an organization’s social media efforts can emanate from but then be dispersed throughout blogs, Flickr, YouTube, etc.

Social media can be created from within

This is obvious.

Social media can be created and enhanced by others

The greatest threat. The biggest fear. The challenging factor that causes many an enterprise to resist, to delay implementations. But those on the outside aren’t waiting.

So to me, social media is so multi-dimensional that it can’t be easily defined in one definition, explained in a singular context, bottled up in a particular department.

Disclosure: I’m a somewhat lapsed cafeteria style Catholic who forgot that yesterday was Ash Wednesday. I’m writing this post based on cultural trends I see in our society, the often monolithic viewpoint of marketers and the media, and the results of good ol’ fashioned grassroots appeal. My own religious views have nothing to do with this since I generally disagree with the religious views of a couple of groups I’m writing about.

When I kept on hearing from professional political pundits that the GOP race for president was now down to two people, John McCain and Mitt Romney, I knew that it was happening again. They were conveniently overlooking the strengths of a third candidate that they ignorantly thought was washed up. Mike Huckabee. Mike Huckabee went on to win five states on Tuesday. Most pundits were predicting that he’d capture just one: his home state of Arkansas. Some of these same pundits were saying that Huckabee winning these states was on the Super Tuesday’s major stories.

The actual story was that these same pundits didn’t see it coming.

In AdAge today, Ken Wheaton points out how the supposed experts misjudged this, just as they had misjudged the appeal of The Passion of the Christ a few years ago. So yes, once again we had a yet another example this past Tuesday night of how supposed pundits and experts both misunderstood and underestimated the power and influence of evangelical Christians and, to a lesser extent, conservative Catholics. In other words, deeply conservative people of some sort of Christian faith.

Why is this important? Because I largely see many in the advertising, media, and entertainment industries as having the same socio-cultural mindset. And when it comes to marketing, it’s a major problem. Too many seem to feel that everyone else (at least those that are intelligent and/or hip) think just like them.

By the way, I’ve written about this before here and here.

It concerns me when I hear those in social media marketing say “you need to engage the community” when I fear that they come to the table with the same assumptions and biases. That’s because social media is that more personal. It’s that more tangible.

I see the social media space as being populated by mostly twenty and thirty somethings. At times, I’ve seen the same stereotyping of certain demographic groups as I have seen from those that are older or are of the same age but are in traditional advertising. It’s my hope that all of us seek to understand not just the bare bones individual that we look to influence, but the cultural factors that make them tick.

Even if we can’t relate to it.

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.

The November 8^th edition of The Economist has an article that asks us “Will Facebook, MySpace and other social networking sites transform advertising?”

In truth, the article is poorly written. It asks the wrong question, it’s lazily researched, and it provides little actual theory or empirical evidence to justify the premise they are trying to suppose. Perhaps the reason for this is that The Economist is a general news publication – one that I respect – and that the article was intended for a mainstream readership that’s likely mostly interested in reading about general trends and not deeper analysis. But nevertheless…

The question as to whether Facebook, MySpace and other social networking sites will transform advertising is off. It I was asked this, I’d have to say no. Not really. (First of all, it’s more marketing than the subset of advertising.) To be sure, they’ll play a major role. But it isn’t the setting so much as it is the relationships that individuals will have with these very sites, with brands, and with one another. Facebook and MySpace may be great places to launch a brand or product page in an attempt to develop what many call a ‘community’. But then again, it may not. Perhaps a product oriented website equipped with social media tools will do.

The article rightfully calls this the fourth in a line of three proven online marketing categories. The first was banner and ad unit advertising. The second was online classifieds, and the third was search.

Yes, the advantage social networks have is that they’ve got millions of registered users, all of whom can tap into the social tools that the sites make available. And those tools include notification systems and the viral capabilities that are so essential to the expansion of a marketing message.

But the essence of all of this will be the interaction of the brand with individuals and the individuals with others of what the brand is hoping that it is creating…a burgeoning community. And that’s where it gets tough. That’s because many, if not most brands, don’t lend themselves to be naturally community building entities on social media sites.

It’s going to take real talent for brand managers, ad agencies, and social media strategist to create successful online marketing campaigns using the strategies we all talk and blog about. Too often I read the typical “you must engage your community’ talk, talk that presupposes that a community already exists. And no – a customer base, by itself, is not a community.

Take for instance a group on Facebook that I joined this morning as a result of reading the article. SpriteSips. Truth be told, I’m a Sprite lover. Always have been. But I joined not because of a lifelong affinity for the soft drink, but because I wanted to see how this online experiment will go. Seems I’m not alone…about half of the hundred or so ‘friends’ of SpriteSips were either from the Coca-Cola company, or from the interactive industry, or worked for Facebook. To be fair, SpriteSips has been up for only a little over a week (thus showing some laziness in research for the article – a more in-depth analysis of the MySpace effort for the movie “300”) and it’s too soon to make any judgments as to the effectiveness of the campaign. But Sprite really isn’t a lifestyle brand like Gatorade or Red Bull or Snapple. It’s going to be a challenge to get people to be continually pumped to come back to and “engage” with a soft drink that tastes good, but one that’s common enough that you can get at McDonalds, Burger King, and Subway. My guess is that it will be moderately successful and cost effective, but it isn’t something that will show how social media shines.

Tangerine Toad has a great series on this. He calls it “Your Brand is Not My Friend”, with the hypothesis being that I may like or even love your product, but don’t assume my affinity with it goes beyond simply using it for purpose that it’s made for.

To me, the article likely will make some social media marketing types all the more enthusiastic while making skeptics all the more skeptic.

I say all of this out of respect for all of us in the social media marketing field. As I mentioned, it’s going to take real talent to harness this new type of market and make it work. It’s going to take keen minds that know what makes different types of individuals out there want to be part of and then how to properly engage with them. It’s going to be a challenge – one that I love and I’m sure you do too.

Here’s an amazing statistic:  a full 57% of marketing executives recently responded with the following answer to the question if their firm has a crisis response communication plan:  NO.  What makes it more amazing is that in the same survey, 53% said that their business had experienced a crisis in the past…one that resulted in a loss in sales, a reduction in profits, or negative press.  A majority of that 53% say that the recovery period took a year a more.  Only one-half have trained spokespeople.  And it shouldn’t go unnoticed that there’s an overlap of 4% here of companies that have suffered a crisis in the recent past but have yet to install a plan to address future crises.

The survey, put together by B2B Magazine and Eric Mower and Associates, was taken of 251 marketing executives this September.  The results are telling.

They’re telling because, well, I’ll let Peter Kapcio of Eric Mower say it…

“If companies choose not to be prepared for a crisis, they and shareholders will pay the price, because crises have a way of twisting and turning till they do serious bottom-line damage… It’s downright professionally irresponsible when b-to-b marcomm people allow their companies to operate unprepared. What if your brand new corporate headquarters building burned down, and it was discovered later that your facilities manager had `neglected’ to buy fire insurance? It’s the same thing when b-to-b companies invest millions in building their brand or company reputation, and then do nothing while it’s all at risk from the next potential crisis.”

A crisis doesn’t necessarily mean your product just exploded and killed a mother of five.  It could mean that a series of a company’s key suppliers have disasters of their own.  A fire at a factory, a crippling strike, trouble brews with the government of the country where the third supplier exists.  Suddenly, your company won’t be able to release the next version of its signature product.  That’s a crisis.  It affects your bottom line, it effects your relationship with your customers, your vendors, your employees and your stockholders.  Wall Street notices and isn’t impressed.  That’s a crisis.  That’s why a company needs a seasoned team who understands the types of scenarios that can develop.

This is becoming all the more increasingly true as we move deeper and deeper into the digital age.  Sure, sometimes the effect of online chatter can be overrated.  But often it is not.  It lasts and lasts and lasts.  And it can reach like minded people and suddenly you’ve got a small movement against you.

But put aside the crisis that may start online and think about the company whose suppliers bug out.  It’s not just Wall Street murmuring, its customers talking to one another online.  And they’re pissed.  Because the last edition was late in delivery by a couple of months.  And these customers have blogs that reach 5000.  Most of whom are your customers as well.  They read product reviews, they participate in forums, they have their own blogs.  Your bad news spreads fast.  You’ve got a crisis. 

So develop a plan.  And start off by reading this.

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.

Check out the article in last Thursday’s Times, Dealing With the Damage From Online Critics, that addresses how to handle consumers who develop a personal vendetta against your company. Well, you could send lawyers but legal cease-and-desists generally just make the customer madder than hell and it isn’t hard to just start yet another attack site.

I hate to say it, sucking less always helps. Start with treating your customers better. Also, be sure to register lots of domain names and work on your online reputation aggressively before it becomes a problem.

Online, the best defense is a good offense and an ounce of online promotion is worth a pound of cure. Here are some great commented-by-me excerpts from the article, Dealing With the Damage From Online Critics, so you can get a gist:

As the power of the Internet grows, businesses small and large find themselves confounded by disenchanted employees, suppliers and competitors who seek fertile ground to air grievances online.

Armed with little more than a Web connection and a keyboard, these detractors can do everything from irritate, via a scathing review, to causing serious business problems by using message boards to reveal company secrets or spread rumors of unethical behavior. They may also start a gripe site or register a Web address in their target’s name.

There is not a lot you can do here so the best way to make sure you’re safe online is by making sure there is a whole lot of conversation about you, your brand, and your company well before anyone says anything, and they will, eventually.

It’s from Stat 101: the more data points there are the less any particular one point will effect the total. If you’re nowhere online, then one attack can demolish you. If, however, you’re ubiquitous, then any negative ad will probably not even cross your first few pages on Google anyway.

And, if it does, an appeasement policy does work: this person is not Hitler, this person just feels like he’s not being heard. I mean, I have done this sort of thing myself with Media Temple.

Their Director of Customer Support called me but his appeasement sucked because his gift wasn’t what I wanted, it is what he was authorized to give. Not enough. I just wanted to be appeased and so he never got the posts off of my blog and never will. I ended up leaving MT and will never recommend them ever again.

In fact, I am adamant that people stay away from Media Temple because I think Media Temple sucks (see what I just did there?)

Remedies vary by case and by state, but lawyers, Internet specialists and others counsel that the best course with may be to ignore irritating posts because trying to squelch a malcontent can have unintended consequences.

Beware of the unintended consequence, something we call blowback in DC. Reacting, responding, or arguing in a comment thread is basically engaging with a Tar Baby. There is no way you’re ever going to come out alive unless you come in very open, very sorry, and have a legitimate solution. Otherwise, if you’re ornery, you’ll have your ass handed to you.

“Your reaction often, if you’re a small business, is to get angry and to fire off a letter,” said Barry Werbin, an intellectual property lawyer at Herrick, Feinstein in New York. “Some big companies do it. More often than not, the person who posts the gripe site can’t wait to get that letter and post it.”

Sometimes, Mr. Werbin added, “it can worsen the damage because it just fuels the fire.”

This is super important — the best reason to hire a company like Abraham Harrison is because we know when not to react. As I always say, don’t respond, reply, react: message and counter-message!However, it is always smart to ask web hosts, web companies, the blogger, etc, very nicely to remove the content, especially after the issue has been resolved by you. Don’t get angry, don’t get even, get your “the customer is always right” hat on and start solving problems.

That the the owner of the gym in the article wouldn’t refund the $100 to the lady-in-question was just a seriously self-destructive rule. Katie Lambert is a moron. Now, she is known as a moron in the New York Times as well because this article makes her seam petty and cheap, surely prissy and pretty bad at customer service, that’s for sure.

Shit, if you own the company, “the rules” can always be ignored — rules are for dumb employees who have no authority so that spineless customers who don’t know their rights can tell their spouses that they tried and there was “nothing I could do.”

“New consumer opinion gets posted about every five seconds,” said Rob Crumpler, chief executive of Buzz Logic, which helps businesses identify influential bloggers.

Samantha DiGennaro, who runs her own strategic communications consulting firm in New York, says many companies either run scared from electronic media or fail to realize how quickly negative comments can jet around the Internet.

“People think, ‘It’s only on the Web. It’s not that important.’ But it’s almost more important than a newspaper or something in print,” she said. “Things live in perpetuity on the Web.”

Spoken words and even IM is “ephemeral,” meaning it is said and dissipates. When you post a blog entry or write a review, it goes on a permanent record. Since most companies have have websites that are essential “brochure-ware,” if there are enough negative reviews, these reviews can even place higher on Google than the company itself!

And, this “blog effect” even works for people who don’t have the Super Ninja SEO skills that I have just because Google favors deep sites, sites with lots of inbound and outbound links, sites with keyword-rich textual links, sites that are easy to “recognize” because they use predictable architecture, and also sites that are updated frequently. Google favors frequently-updated content above any other because Google is always afraid of missing something. Google wants to be first so Google will always index something fast and often if it is a site that is being constantly-updated — like a blog, a message board, or a review site! Ha!

Some large marketers may blog or respond anonymously. Ms. DiGennaro said appropriate responses were not one size fits all and must be tailored to the particular case. If something merits being addressed, she said, it can better be done in the name of the company rather than hiding behind anonymous postings.

Good lord, do not astroturf — it might seem like a great idea but it will give you nothing but pain!

Finally, Defensive Search Engine Optimization (Defensive SEO) works! It works! And here’s how, in a nutshell:

On the technical front, a search engine optimization expert can tweak a site so that it moves a positive posting higher in an Internet search, tending to bury the negative one. Shailen Lodhia, vice president for sales at Submit Express, an optimization firm in Burbank, Calif., estimated results could take three months to a year, and monthly retainers could exceed $3,000.

The best defense is a good offense. Useful practices include registering personalized e-mail addresses as well as gripe domain names — not with the intention of using them but to prevent others doing so. Registering common misspellings as well as derogatory domain names is a good precaution and so is covering extensions like .biz and .org. Costs are minimal, some lower than $50 a year.

And here is the money-shot of the entire article: you will not only be judge on the dumb or good things you do, but people know that you can really judge a company during a fit of rage, so you will also be judged by how you respond!

“Some people, for whatever reason, aren’t going to like or appreciate what you’re selling,” she said. “Accept this as normal, and you won’t stay awake at night letting a disgruntled client or a negative person who decided not to use your services bring you down with what will be transparently obvious to most people as sour grapes feedback.”

Angie Hicks, founder of Angie’s List, a member-generated ratings service where users report their positive or negative experiences with local contractors, said every company gets complaints at some time, but the way it responds can be more telling than the complaint itself.

“You can really see how that company is going to stand by their work based on how they handle problems that come up,” she said.

Don’t even try to attack, to counter-attack, to start making excuses, or by insulting or defaming your attacker. Remember what I told you about the tar-baby? Well, waging war with online conversation is an insurgency and requires asynchronous warfare techniques… I like to call them asynchronous marketing and asynchronous PR — forget about it, I already locked down the domain names!

With the issue of reputation management in the news, I’ve been thinking a lot about the recent discovery that many of the Mattel toys made in China were painted with lead-based paints. This had followed several other unrelated incidents that had previously caused embarrassment to either Mattel or to China.

A company such as Mattel needs to have a proactive online strategy that could meet the negativity head on, to help suppress those damaging rumors that could hurt the company both immediately and permanently. A company needs to understand what is being said about them in online forums, on blogs, and, if necessary, it needs to help blunt and diminish the negativity headed their way.

For Mattel, it was the recall of millions of other toys that contained small magnets that could fall out of the toy and could be swallowed by young children. And for China, it was the massive recall of pet food earlier this year.

Oddly enough, a controversy erupted when Mattel apologized to U.S. consumers. The company had done the ‘right thing’ – or what is now considered standard practice – as they trotted out CEO Bob Eckert and put him on video with him stressing that Mattel will immediately look into the matter and make changes. And he wanted us to know that he, as a Dad himself, was concerned. Relational empathy works.

But the problem was that as Mattel was apologizing to US citizens, they were subtlety making it seem the problem was ‘with China’…which, if not exonerating the toy company, muddled up their role in the fiasco. In the meantime, the Chinese government was not thrilled as most of the recalled toys had problems with their very design as created by Mattel as opposed to lax Chinese standards or poor Chinese workmanship. As a result , Mattel made an apology to China, even though lax standards DID cause some of the problems.

So, as it often happens, we don’t know really who is to blame here. Or if any blame is damning enough to have either the company or the country or both scorned. Now that may be good enough and the issue may go away. But today, with the blogosphere in full swing, with online forums abuzz, with citizen journalism being heralded as a wave of the future, my bet is that problems like this will last more than a bit longer.

So, to me, companies such as Mattel (or governments, or associations, or any type of organization) and their PR agencies are going to have to either learn about or invest in the services of a digital consultancy that can help them manage, repair, or defend their reputation.

Disclosure: Abraham Harrison offers those services. But hear me out.

Businesses are going to make mistakes. Some honest ones, some callous ones. There will always be forces out that the will – very legitimately – call them on these mistakes. But mistakes can lead to rumors to that can spread very fast, to activist groups looking for the killer punch, to media outlets looking for that big story…when there may be no story to speak of.

Traditional PR practices still make perfect sense. Put the CEO on video, develop an new (and more effective) set of guidelines, work with the media. But today that may be enough.

A company such as Mattel needs to have a proactive online strategy that could meet the negativity head on, to help suppress those damaging rumors that could hurt the company both immediately and permanently. A company needs to understand what is being said about them in online forums, on blogs, and, if necessary, it needs to help blunt and diminish the negativity headed their way.

It’s a whole new ball game.

I recently heard a conversation on the radio show “On The Media” with Washington Post journalist Shankar Vedantam called “The Truth of False”.

I found this to be an incredibly interesting topic and shows the power of positive conversation. Not in the “fluffy” way, but in directing the attention to a positive statement about a subject. This is ultimately the most powerful approach to “winning the minds” of the people.

I decided to pull out the important snippets of the discussion:

BOB GARFIELD: Americans may or may not be as sleep-deprived as drug makers claim, but if it were a myth you could try to quash it with the truth. That’s what the Centers for Disease Control Prevention recently did. They sent out a flyer listing various facts and myths about the flu vaccine and labeled them “true or false.” But a study at the University of Michigan found that the CDC flyer actually did nothing to change people’s minds and may have even spread vaccine myths to more people.

Shankar Vedantam, a reporter for The Washington Post, explains that right after reading the flyer, people mostly remembered the false statements as false.

SHANKAR VEDANTAM: But about 30 minutes later, older people started to remember some of the false statements as true, and three days later, very large numbers of older people and significant numbers of younger people also started remembering increasing numbers of myths as true.

The true statements did not suffer the same kind of deterioration with time. In other words, over time we tend to remember false things as true but not true things as false.

BOB GARFIELD: Now, if I understand your piece, when people hear a statement involving a negative – let’s say Saddam was not connected to 9/11 – and they hear it often enough, somehow the “not” disappears.

SHANKAR VEDANTAM: That’s right. What happens, unfortunately, is our denial of the myth ends up repeating the myth and makes the myth itself more accessible to people’s memory. And furthermore, as the separate study that you note points out, what happens very often is that the “not” in the sentence essentially falls off with time in many people’s memories.

Then they go on to talk about a second study that further emphasizes the point.

BOB GARFIELD:…But there’s another study that suggests that if you are, in fact, predisposed to have a certain world view that misinformation sticks still more. Can you describe it?

SHANKAR VEDANTAM: There’s a new study that’s just been completed by Jason Reifler at Georgia State University where he actually looks at questions such as why it is that large numbers of people continue to believe that weapons of mass destruction were present in Iraq before the invasion or even found in Iraq after the invasion.

And what Jason and his colleagues did was try and give people the correct information. And what he found, ironically, is that partisans who wanted to believe that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, when told about the correct information, ended up believing ever more fervently that they were right and that the correct information was wrong.

SHANKAR VEDANTAM: ….And so presenting [them] with the correct information, which, by the way, is our government’s strategy of combating myths and disinformation, does not seem to be a very effective approach.

SHANKAR VEDANTAM: One thing that I should mention, Bob, is that when you’re trying to deny a falsehood, perhaps the most effective way of doing that is by not mentioning the original falsehood at all.

In other words, if someone said that Bob Garfield is for child prostitution, the right response is not Bob Garfield is not for child prostitution, but, rather, to say Bob Garfield is an upstanding journalist who believes in the finest tenets of journalism and runs a very popular show that’s heard widely by many millions of people around the world.

There you have it!!! Keep the truth to the truth and make sure the false is always the truth not the truth in opposition to the false; make it so the false is the truth….come on everyone join the bandwagon!!!

There is no way to control online message at all. The best way to effectively control the message is to make sure that the message you’re combating never has an opportunity to become the most visible or the most prominent conversation online. Negative conversation online is usually ephemeral if it is just one voice amongst many.

The trouble is with most new brands is that there isn’t a lot of either noise or static already existent in the mediasphere and reputation-sphere. Names like Shel Holtz and Joseph Jaffe are more unique than Gary Cohen or Mark Harrison. Mark Harrison can be a complete ass online and loads and loads of people can hate him completely and the Internet probably will never register that thousands and thousands of people hate Mark Harrison. The Mark Harrison passion chamber is buzzing with Mark Harrisons.

There is only one Shel Holtz but Shel owns the space. If one wanted to defame Shel, it would take lots and lots of high-profile blogs and sites, pushing in a concerted effort to break into the top 100 returns. Not only does Shel own his own reputation unto the third or fourth page of Google, he also has a posse. This posse of bloggers have saturated the top-ten pages, 100 returns, with love, support, reverence, thanks, and a little neutral-tone conversation.

If you have a unique brand or a unique name, you are a single man in an empty room and you had better control your brand, your reputation, and your listings on Yahoo!, Google, Live.com, MSN, Technorati, Ask.com, and the rest of them. Who am I kidding, it’s only Google.

Unlike the staid nature of a nationally-syndicated magazine, a blog actually gets better the more open and honest the participants are. It is also an amazing way to allow the members of your company or team, the marketing team, us, them, and anyone else, to participate in the process of creating and building your brand.

Blog search engines such as Technorati, Feedster, and BlogPulse only care about the last word. If you can reply to a negative, hurtful brand hit, then you can dominate the conversation and win the debate in most cases.

Google cares about everything, but the latest word isn’t always indexed yet. In the world of Google, the better indexed site always wins. Maximize your knowledge about SEO and Google Sitemaps if you want to compete here.

You can’t control online conversation unless you participate. To quote Sernovitz, “you’ll never be able to control the blogosphere conversation. Don’t even try. you’ll never be able to manage your blog coverage like you manage the press. Don’t even try. But what you can do is participate, earn respect, and tell your story.

Jump in, join the conversation, and be a part of it.” The only way to get indexed by Google or to show up on Technorati, Feedster, and BlogPulse is to be an online opinion leader who has a site that has made it out of Technorati, Feedster, BlogPulse, Yahoo!, MSN, and Google’s sandbox, and has a SEO and a Blog Search Engine strategy.

You have to initiate membership, become part of the conversation, build street cred, have an SEO and blog strategy, and become a respected online opinion leader before something goes awry. It is important that you begin establishing yourself as soon as you begin building your company. Visibility and influence online takes time, so it’s best to start building early, so that when your product or service is ready for launch, you won’t have to wait another six months to become visible.

Therefore, trying to ask someone to bring something awful or defamatory is close to impossible and often does more harm than good as a blogger posts your lawyer’s cease-and-desist letter and then mocks you further. Most bloggers don’t have a pot to piss in and are looking for a fight; also, many web hosting companies are really shy about enforcing any sort of anti-defamation, freedom of speech, issues for two reasons: most web hosting companies and the sort of people who run them, are libertarians; also, if the word gets out that a web hosting company is bringing stuff down based on coercion or legal means, then their reputation is pretty screwed.

That said, getting humble and asking for what you need directly seems to work a lot more than you would thing. Reaching out to say hello, to request a voice, or to ask very nicely to have the article brought down, to offer your opinion, to generously offer corrections for misinformation, or to offer an interview or exclusive are way more effective ways of interacting with the blogosphere.