If there’s one book on marketing you rush out to buy this fall, choose Brandwashed!

This is not a paid endorsement, merely the most creative and well-written look that I’ve seen at product placement, technology and the power that companies continue to have over consumers…ever. I’m trying to pitch it as a psychology class to my alma mater.

Did you know that you are first targeted by businesses at the age of 24 weeks? In the womb. The inspiration of Mr. Martin Lindstrom‘s latest is a Keeping up with the Joneses type experiment. A family moved into a wealthy Californian neighborhood with the intent of seeing at how concentrated peer pressure and product placement appeared to be and how well it worked. Because the publishing-company-created Morganson family was affluent, approachable and easy to respect, the result was that their peers and neighbors wanted to embody their purchase decisions. I reached out to Mr. Lindstrom about the development process of Brandwashed and his history in the marketing and advertising worlds.

You can’t have started much younger than this guy. As a kid he loved LEGO, (understatement, the man had a LEGO bed…actually I’m a little jealous and impressed by this) and was enamored by the idea of opening his own LEGOLAND. When visitors were a wee bit lacking the first day, Lindstrom decided to approach a local advertising agency for a sponsorship. His dedication to his craft must have been apparent; they accepted and 131 guests arrived the next day to see the newest branch of the LEGOLAND franchise. Unfortunately, guests 130 and 131 were representatives from LEGO who were none too happy with the situation. Regardless, enterprise and creativity were instilled in Lindstrom from an early age.

Lindstrom hopes that if readers take anything away from Brandwashed it will be the idea that we’re all Brandwashed. Here comes the psychology- “The more we think we’re immune the more brandwashed we are.”

In his journey to withdraw from the product/consumer frenzy, Lindstrom gave himself a goal. One year without brands. Nada. Toothpaste? Had to be generic, the kind you get on plains. Bananas, no Chiquita for you. Anything that subconsciously you would allude to with a store or brand reference, went out the door. When I asked Lindstrom which brand he missed the most? (And you’ll have to read Brandwashed to see if he was successful in his endeavor) Pepsi. Which interestingly enough, he’s since “quit.”

In reading Brandwashed: Tricks Companies Use to Manipulate Our Minds and Persuade Us to Buy, I was more often surprised than not reading case study and statistics. Lindstrom shares the Carmex industry as a shocker — they infuse an addictive substance into the lip balm, creating a continuous need for the consumer to apply more. Naughty, naughty Carmex! Seeing as how the inspiration for the Morganson experiment was a recent movie, I asked if Lindstrom thought the movie was an accurate portrayal of brand placement. He agrees it was extremely accurate and a fair representation of sale increases due to word of mouth and consumer-to-consumer advertising. One product advertised by the Morganson family saw an increase in sales of over 1000%.

Unfortunately the future of brand placement, at least if you’re opposed to it, isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. Lindstrom believes the future holds a complete integration of editorial messages and commercial messages.

“It’s sad but true. It’s happening because the TV networks are struggling to retain attention around their programs (TIVO) so they need to integrate the commercial messages into their editorial work. We’ll also soon see plot placement where the entire story is about a brand (think about Master – the dog in a Chile TV show sponsored by the brand Master). Can we avoid it – no – but we can inform about – hence Brandwashed (this is a product placement – now you’re warned) ;-D”

Well then maybe Lindstrom’s upcoming goals are spot-on: educating companies. This coming week he’ll introduce the 10 new ethical guidelines for companies worldwide to adapt. He’s created these with the help of 2,100 consumers. His hopes? That he can persuade 10% of Fortune 500 companies.

“Word-of-mouth is the answer- both online and offline. It is very clear to me that our filter goes up when we’re exposed for advertising – lowering the effect that it has. The same is happening for product placement as we get more and more used to it. Next frontier will be word-of-mouth — and possibly contextual advertising — both online (which is happening in a big way on Facebook and elsewhere) and in the real bricks-and-mortar world (like contextual shopping carts etc).”

Brandwashed: Tricks Companies Use to Manipulate Our Minds and Persuade Us to Buy

Related articles

• Brandwashed by Martin Lindstrom (futurelab.net)
• Brandwashed by Martin Lindstrom (neurosciencemarketing.com)
• Is Your Brand Evil? (neurosciencemarketing.com)
• Author Hopes His New Book Redraws Ethical Lines in Marketing (mediabistro.com)
• It’s the Product, Stupid (neurosciencemarketing.com)

Most readers today have the attention span of a young child. Internet users are constantly jumping from page to page in an effort to find something that catches their eye. Readers need something that is going to grab their attention, and keep it.

But how does one author captivate an audience when facing millions of potential competitors? A recent Business 2 Community article  by Jeff Bullas, has created a set of guidelines that online writers should follow to ensnare readers and keep ‘em around.

The first step, according to Bullas, is to brainstorm an attractive headline. A headline is the first element readers will see, and it must attract the viewer or the game’s over. As Bullas so cleverly put it, we are in an age of skimming. Most readers are scouring the Web on tablets and smart phones and don’t have the space, desire, or the time to waste on generic or bland writing. An article must seduce the audience in a split second, and it all begins with the headline.

The next step, per Writing 101, is the introduction. The deciding factor in whether the reader will stick around. The intro needs to immediately state what the article is about while also appealing to them. Use a quote, present a question, create an image, quote a statistic, or provide a personal story. Any of these components will engage readers and make them think.

The tension is rising and the mission continues, the reader must be held on the page. The content should always be interesting, but there are other ways to keep the reader’s eyes planted. Visual elements. Sub-titles, images, videos, and hyperlinks are all ways to entertain the reader. Present the information simply. A huge block of text only allows a chance for the reader to get lost in the words. Appeal to the age of skimming and break up the text into bite size pieces; the reader will appreciate it.

Finally, the article must come full circle. The original statement should be looped back to in the article’s conclusion. The author should summarize the highlights of the article in a short sentence or two, so that the reader leaves with the main points in mind. Might sound old school in a world of ever changing technology and shortcuts, but at Abraham Harrison we keep our roots in mind. Proper writing etiquette is the foundation for all successful marketing.

Lisa Gerber and the folks at SpinSucks have uncovered the secret to our obsession with social media. It was an epic journey and there may have been some casualties, but I think its worth the risk to share their finding with you–

competition.

Example: Foursquare, what’s its appeal? I mean sure we relish the idea of building online communities and discovering new locations in our cities, but really it’s all about the badges. Who gets to a place first. A technological race. Gerber was able to enjoy the insights of the folks at BlogWorldEast where they tackled the theory behind “Gamification.”

Gamification is the act of applying the things that make games interesting to non-game activities.

Game mechanics can both increase loyalty and influence customers. I’ve taken Seth Preibatsch’s (gaming ninja extraordinaire) four categories of these dynamics and tweaked them slightly:

1) Competition: Just like other users in an online gaming world, your competition is what drives you to do better.
2) Incentive: Foursquare offers the best example of a “physical” incentive with its badges, but more and more social media and marketing sites are ready to reward you for going the extra distance whether this means advancing your html code on your site or improving your profile on Linkedin. (Hey, that percentage gauge on the right side of the screen can push you to achieve that extra 5%!)
3) Progression: If you’re able to track your progress with followers or increased sales/loyalty, you’re improving your ROI– the ultimate goal of any marketing firm.
4) Prize: I like to think of the prize as that dangling donut in front of a stairmaster. It will always be there. You will never be done finessing your marketing technique, but assume that that donut will keep growing with every milestone that you achieve. Either that or the stairmaster gets a lot slower…

Seth does a great Ted talk video that’s WELL worth the length if you have the time:

You have to think about the behavior you are trying to drive. Decide what the story is that you want to tell. Think about the game mechanics you want to employ to accomplish both of these things.

Gerber reiterates that it’s not enough to make a game. It’s not an be-all, end-all to create a game to increase loyalty. If you want brand loyalty, create a quality product. Remember the speed that digital media continues to improve with. Implement a gamification method with the ability to expand it, tapping into even bigger and better things.

USA Networks is about to launch next season premieres for 3 different series in January: Burn Notice, Psych and White Collar (OMG.. set those DVR‘s now!). What and how will this change the online environment and the digital environment of the sites that comprise USA Networks which include Character Arcade and The Clik Blog ratchets up the visibility of the network and their shows.

The USA Network site features full-length episodes of each show and also provides lots of background information on characters, actors and more. Also they have create aa great collection of show-oriented games and mind-bender sites tnat will immerse you more into the world of the various shows.

Want to explore more games ? Check out Character Arcade . This Holiday Hiatus Blues post is filled with suggestions of various games including mobile applicatiions.

Luckily to explain what the digital division has done for 2009 and where it’s going in 2010, is Vice President, Digital Strategy & Development, NBC Universal, USA Network Jesse Redniss. spent some time talking to us about this very subject and a lot more — almost 30 minutes of chat time.

Redniss understands the power of the web and how it interfaces with the USA network and how to leverage it to best make use of the consumer interface. He provided a great deal of insight regarding the direction of USA’s network dramas as well as the online experience of forums, games and other initiatives like Characters Unite-which is a partnership with charitable organizations along with Tom Brokaw’s town hall meeting and others to work on fostering a change and congruence on a variety of issues in the world today. The Characters Unite initiative started in 2009 and will be a huge focal point in 2010. Surf this site and take the Pledge!

Other things to note about USA Networks is GreenUSA. Check out the Eco-ist Corner for tips, tricks and the entire site for more ways to go green and help the environment.

Other places mentioned within the podcast to check out include
Burn Notice Game with Fiona
Ask a Spy

Thank you to Jesse Redniss for his time and tons of information. Also thank you to USA Network and Electric Artists for making this podcast happen!

Stevie Wilson, LA-Story.com
Stevie Wilson writes the www.LA-Story.com blog and is Chief Marketing Officer & Partner, KBP Inc, a privately held corporation dealing in multi-media, real estate developments, internet start-ups and new media marketing strategy.

Related articles by Zemanta

• USA Network Surprises In 2009 (perezhilton.com)

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.

I decided to put together a list of reasons why I think many marketing agencies “don’t get” social media. Some are legitimate reasons, most aren’t. Feel free to add some of your own.

1- Elitism

The marketing industries – advertising, PR – are considered to be ‘cool’ or chic. These industries (including social media by the way) are filled with people who are self-consciously aware of this. For years I’ve been on online forums filled with ad people trashing the industry, talking about the lack of creative talent the whole time positioning themselves as being above it all.

Enter social media and its marketing aspects and these self-important types have something else to look down upon. If that attitude is prevelant in an agency, then it means you’ve got an agency that’s closed off to innovation.

2- Lack of Vision

An agency gets an RFP for a major client. They have meetings to brainstorm. How to position the brand. What creative they should use. Where they should make placements. Do we look to bring in a spokesperson? What strategies, what tactics?

And the whole time, social media didn’t enter their mindset.

That may be because they’re too rushed to give their response to the RFP and, because they haven’t had the time to learn much about social media. When it comes crunch time, it never occurs to them to do something with social media.

3- Lack of Interest

A couple of years ago I contacted a mid-size ad agency to see if they were going to incorporate any type of online marketing capabiliites. They had no interest in it. It was more than a lack of vision. It was simply put, a fundamental lack of interest of what was happening around them

4- Unable to figure out the revenue model

This is an underrated and compelling reason. I don’t believe as some doom sayers do that advertising is on its way out. But it is changing and some of these new business models involve little revenue. If you’ve to a lot of overhead and a project comes in that could mean little revenue, you’re going to be flummoxed and scared shitless of this.

5- Terrified of Technology

Often, people in agencies play the “he’s a tech guy” routine. Cordoning off those who do online stuff as a whole as tech people. And tech people usually aren’t marketing types. So by placing that label on it, ad types both partially remove internet marketers from the decision making pro and set up a situation where they don’t have to deal with technology – and the unknown.

6- They undervalue what it takes to establish a capability

Other times I’ve talked to agencies that it seems they want to hire someone “young” and not pay them much and “teach” them about online marketing, even though those that teach no little of what they speak. Developing an online capability is viewed as a cost, not an opportunity and the idea then is to go as cheaply as possible.

7- Methodologies are still being developed

Yes, this is true. The field is very new and, while there have been many successes, the constantly changing nature of social media – blogs, social networks, microblogs, online video, is often in a flux. Methodologies have to play catch up.

8- Social media is largely unproven

No, this is not heresy. It’s the truth, plain and simple. It’s an emerging field and, while social media usage is growing phenomenally, it’s growing in many different directions. Each time it grow, new lessons have to be applied to new strategies.

9- Too much hype from social media strategists

“Engage or die”. “The customer is in control of the brand”. Overblown statements by ‘visionaries’ that usually aren’t true and turn off traditional marketers. Statements like that seem to be directed at other social media strategists where it becomes part of the echo chamber. Not everyone had to ‘engage’ and not everyone will die if they fail to do so.

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.

Naked Conversations gives a transparent look into why your business may have a company webpage but have yet to form real relationships with individuals in the blogosphere—an increasingly growing online community. Chapters within the text reveal valid reasons why small and large companies need to start being honest and reaching out to their customers.

Robert Scoble and Shel Israel illustrate a new revolution in their text by pointing out that blogging has already begun to change the social landscape of media communication. We are living in age where every second of every day is a missed opportunity if you do not promote your business through an integration of media outlets.

The authors’ state that company blogs are a tool and the return on investment is that new and returning customers will see a sincere human being who cares about their business and reputation. They also reaffirm that if someone has not being open, honest, or cool about a company product, the blogosphere or global network of fact checkers has the right to say something about it.

The communication revolution moves from an impersonal, controlled one-way model of communication into a decentralized interactive, constantly regenerating conversation. Word-of-mouth is a phrase reverberated throughout the text and can be visualized within the recounts of successful blogs like GM Fast lane, English Cuts-Savile Row suits, and Treonauts by Andrew Carton. Each has learned that customer evangelists have the ability to jump start excitement and dole out advice if your product is not quite remarkable just yet.

Why are so many companies afraid of conversational marketing? The authors explain that many individuals care so much their product they are afraid to gamble on all the hard work that has already been put into the business.

Time consumption, legal concerns, negative comments, clash with PR firm, giving away competitive information, and getting fired are all valid apprehensions but can be deterred by remembering key advice that not only the authors but regulars readers of Naked Conversation Blog agreed that the tips given in Chapter 11 Doing It Right would ease new and inexperienced individuals into the blogosphere. A blogging plumber you say?

The Corporate Weblog Manifesto in Chapter 12 has over 30 great comments about the principles of corporate blogging from experienced bloggers as well.

Now here is the honest part of this review if you are still reading. After finishing the text, my subjective view is that your company should create a blog about your brand if it has not been done already because it gives you DIRECT ACCESS to potential and returning customers. Keep your corporate leadership priorities straight and only blog when you can and give up the duties to employees or emerging online pr companies that want to see the highest level of excellence from your product(s).

Remember you are not late to the game, it has just started, so jump in and get your feet wet. Have OPENNESS & HONESTY & (be) COOL– showcase exactly why your brand is remarkable because blogging allows the opportunity to the change the entire perception with the click of the mouse and tap of the keyboard. Customer evangelist will come to your assistance if someone calls your product unremarkable.

I think readers will enjoy this book for an over view of why blogs are necessary for business reputation and encourage the customer evangelist in all of us. (‘Because we are living in a material world’… ok I’m back from 1985 or just watched a scene from Moulin Rouge).

Scoble and Israel stated in the final paragraph of the book that blogging has ended an era of one way communication and companies are not just talking to consumers anymore. Two-way conversation allows customers an all exclusive, backstage VIP pass to give thoughts and feedback on products and brands in the market right now. Businesses no longer have to wonder why a product is not interesting consumers when focus groups state they have explored all avenues. CEO John Doe can go online and pose the question on a blog or in message forums and get answers from the individuals with money to spend.

Blogs must be seen as tools and corporations must see that markets are available for conversation. The Conversation Era is here but the conversations have only just begun.

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.

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.

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!

McKinsey posted a report on the results of a survey they recently took of marketing executives. It’s called How Companies are Marketing Online. The report may not have earth shattering findings, but it does offer some key insights into the future if you read between the lines.Three things stood out in my opinion.

One is that current levels of spending and implementation are quite low as compared to how marketers and other decision makers perceive the overall effectiveness of online marketing.  This will mean that future investment in online marketing is bright as the level of investment will catch up with this perception.

The second was the lack of understanding of various facets of online marketing and how these facets should be integrated, implemented, and measured.

Many marketers also felt that, while they themselves and their internal folks weren’t up to speed quite yet when it came to online marketing, the marketing agencies that they used weren’t as well.

And this was a contributing factor in the delay of implementing strategies.The third was that the majority of respondents felt that online marketing was more efficient than traditional marketing. This underscores the expectation of the growth in online spend.

And fortifying this was that marketing online was roughly equally as good for brand building and direct response.Early in the report, it mentions that respondents expect that the majority of their customers will discover new products or services while they are online. A full one third of them will purchase them there.

Also, 10 percent of sales will come from online channels, an increase of 100% of what it is today. These expectations are going to be the impetus behind the increased spending that we’ll see.I can’t help but see this as a continued strategy of seeking to get immediate ROI, a factor that may have limited growth at this point.

And I’ve always viewed that as a mistake. The reason I see it as a mistake is that companies need to invest in knowledge and experience to develop and implement the right strategies as opposed to wait a while and finally invest money in what they may view as only tactics. Indeed, the report mentions that 42% of the respondents felt a greater investment in the overall capabilities would have made their initial investments more effective.

That’s because the online arena is not going to be a place where you toss out a conglomeration of tactics and hope they stick. Together they formulate a strategy and a very important one at that.Significantly, many of the companies that advertise online see it as both a brand building and direct response vehicle.

And that includes search advertising. I see this making sense for several reasons. People, as a whole, whether they are acting as a consumer or a business purchaser, have taken in the internet deeper into their lives. It is no longer relatively new.

It is a necessary part of one’s life. With this, online experiences become richer. So people go online to learn and to get information. Ergo, effective online advertising helps build brands and increases direct sales.Finally, companies that have been making significant online investments are including collaborative tools for customer retention and brand building.

This is important because we in the so-called echo chamber have been saying that companies must ‘engage’ their customers online. Get in conversations. You know, a Marketing Conversation.

As Facebook was enjoying an enormous growth in popularity this past summer in both popularity and new members, there was some grumbling that it’s platform was to restrictive for those inside that wanted to give their information exposure and for those on the outside who wanted to take a peek inside.

We also had what many consider to be America’s most prestigious newspaper, The New York Times, have something called “Time Select”, which placed key content behind unsearchable walls. Only those willing to pay could access it. That is, only those who valued the NYTimes as a news resource and would head over to the site. But what the Times didn’t realize in its arrogance was that there’s a heckuva lotta other new sources on the internet with a click of a mouse. Through a search engine that is.

So both companies made a good business decision. Facebook has lowered the wall and will allow search engines to take a peek inside. People can still opt out an have their profiles shielded from the outside world, but that’s going to be the exception as opposed to the rule. And the Times has now done away with their experiment, giving us all now the privilidge of accessing and reading the Grey Lady.

What this shows us is the continual importance of establishing a strong SEO presence. It shows that the likely most important reason to go online is still to get information that we want. It shows that Google and Yahoo and others are the gateways.

Now, not every profile on Facebook needs exposure. But as a whole, this relatively new but very influential site found it essential. As did the self-described most important newspaper in the country.

SEO gives you access to what you want: customers, visitors, users, and, $$$.

I asked Kevin to write a blog post (which rocked) based on my assumption that the US is headed towards a recession based on the devaluation of the dollar, the housing market slump, and the war in Iraq. I believe that marketing and advertising online is recession-proof, especially as attention profiling and behavioral targeting strategies improve and ads become customized to each the unique hopes, dreams, needs, wants, and context of users online.

My premise, in short, is that folks will hunker down during this recession with only the “Internet” to keep them company, in the form of VOIP, IPTV, social media, MMORPGs, and networked video games.

Essentially, folks will spend all of their attention online so there will be more ad and marketing dollars spent online in order to reach them. During the upcoming recession, search engine marketing (SEM), search engine optimization (SEO), new marketing, online outreach, online engagement, online advocacy, viral and word-of-mouth marketing, targeted direct marketing, and laser-targets online ad buys will thrive because they’re relatively cheap, focused, and where the people are, while print ads, commercials, and radio spots will plummet: too much buck for the bang.

We’re going to have a recession. let’s just make that assumption.

Usually, during a recession, ad revenues drop. My argument is that during a recession, people stay home more. Web surfing is cheap, amusing, plentiful, and also most amusing with broadband. While people may cut down cable, they will keep their Internet connection — and will hunker-down on the Internet while they’re low on personal spending money, on discretionary income.

My dad was an photographer and ad man in Hawaii during a recession in Japan that totally gutted the the Hawaiian economy. Traditionally, the first thing companies do when the shit hits the fan is pull ad dollars.

In that scenario, my dad’s company almost shuttered. What this shakedown did, however, was created stock photography and video, killing the bespoke day-rate on-site corporate photographer. Something always comes out in the end.

Downturns result in a need to make systems more efficient and more effective. It just wasn’t affordable for agencies to hire shooters to do shoots, bespoke. There were too many variables and all the risk was on the shoulders of the client. Stock photography changed all of that: cheaper and oftentimes better, since the shooter incurs the risk and the stock is “all the best of all time” and not the best that a particular day, week, or season had to offer.

How effective is plastering walls with bills or standing on a soap box when people are at home and online? How effective are commercials on cable channels people drop as a “luxury?” How worthwhile are those magazine ads when people drop their subscriptions to GQ and O?

The Internet is a commodity. Broadband is no longer a luxury — people are not willing to either go back to “rabbit ears” or to dial up. Folks will keep their basic cable, I am sure — it is a commodity — and they will keep their Internet, another commodity.

Is it very interesting time. I guess this is sort of a prediction. We’ll see if it all comes true. Check out that Canadian Loonie, eh?

Well, at the end of the day, I will always quote Kevin Donlan quoting someone else:

“When times are good, you should advertise. When times are bad, you must advertise.”

Jeremiah Owyang is one of the best strategic minds out there when it comes to using the web as a means to conduct business, to communicate, to market. A year ago, he laid out what he considers to be the three elements of what a web strategist needs to understand:

1) User
The Web Strategist must understand (by using a variety of techniques and tactics) what users want. This is commonly known as User Experience Research which will create and craft a ‘mental model’

2) Business
A website that is not aligned to business or market objectives is ultimately doomed to fail. The User and Business requirements will often match, but will rarely ever be a perfect fit. The Web Strategist) will need to obtain business requirements from stakeholders, whether that be execs, sponsors, sales, or even shareholders. Understanding the market, competitors (and key milestones) and other external forces are also required –a business requirements model will be formed, these are you objectives.

3) Tools
Lastly, a Web Strategist needs to know how each and every tool and technology work, they’ll need to know the strengths, benefits, limitations and costs. This also applies to human capital, and timelines. Often technical limitations will reduce the scope of User and Business needs, so you’ll need to incorporate this going forward.

He’s spot on on all three. I’ve added a fourth:

4) The Markets/Audiences
If markets are conversations, and if the truth to that is ever increasing with social media, then web strategiests need to know how their organizations and their products and /or service offerings are coming off via blogs, microblogs, online communities, forums, etc. They need to understand the nature of these settings, they dynamics of the people who are behind these conversations. And they need to understand how these conversations are generated, how they spread, and what effect they have on the brand.

Thoughts?

Integrating “customer reviews and ratings on its Web site” is something Wal-Mark should have been doing since 1997.

“Wal-Mart today said it is adding customer reviews and ratings on its Web site. The new feature will allow customers to submit ratings and reviews of merchandise available online only as well as products sold in stores.” Via WebProNews

I’m seriously surprised that this has never occurred before to one of the largest e-commerce sites on planet earth. I guess they’re just a little more conservative in Bentonville.

When I hear the word “marketing” I get something of a fright. What is it about marketing that on one level repels people and on another level seems to be such an integral part of our lives. The other day I came across a cartoon published in the San Francisco Chronicle – it was a spoof on a large neon billboard right as you get off the Bay Bridge in Oakland.

We make fun of it – but it is there and it stays there. People complain about commercials on TV – but we get free TV (or if you like “subsidized”) because of all the money that the station makes from commercials.

This is your classic experience of advertising – tv commercials, billboards, print ads and now the infamous world of online advertising. Online advertising is another one of those mediums that we have come to accept – though at times begrudgingly and for those in the blogging world “thankfully”.

I say thankfully because, for the blogger, if there was no online advertising (google adwords etc) who would “pay” you to read your ramblings (or mine for that matter). It is those little ads on the sides of every page that are paying the person who is writing about their dog, or car, or cat, or kid. It is not what they are saying necessarily that is getting them paid. It is the propensity of humans to explore – “ooohhh what is this. let me click here and see what I find” kind of mentality.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not passing some sort of judgment I am just sharing my observations.

So, here we are in a new world of marketing – at least that is the idea (that it is new) – it is sometimes called “conversational marketing”. Is there an essential difference between conversational marketing and any other type of print/billboard etc advertising?

It is this question that I am struggling with. In a famous book written by Naomi Klein, No Logo, (yes I am sure some of you have heard of her) she talks about this type of marketing – a type used by the big boys (Nike, Addidas etc) – the spreading of the word, creating coversations about your product.

It is as if you want your product to become part of the normal conversation. You want people to talk about it, to share their excitement or even trepidation. You just want the word out!

In the world of blogging this seems to be all about tagging, linking and commenting. It is this type of connecting that is so interesting in the online world. It is this community of connections that everyone is trying to dig into. It is here that we can make or break brands. It is here that we can create multiple “hundredth monkey” phenomenons.

For me it is about how we use our network and to what ends.

The Internet is neither a place nor a destination. One cannot broadcast to the Internet and there is very little correlation between throwing money at online advertising and building brand equity online. To quote the Cluetrain Manifesto, “markets are conversations,” and marketing to the Internet not only requires engagement in the conversation that is already happening online, but it also requires engaging with the people having these online conversations.