As digital engagement spreads from the web (Facebook, Twitter, websites) to smart phones and tablets, apps have become a critical factor to gain user attention by providing a function, service or information. It’s more than the icing on these devices that we buy and use. With the smartphone/tablet dimension, apps are embedded into the user experience landscape as serious, useful and fun additions to their device. Often the availability of the apps to improve the function of the devices from phones to tablets and the variety of apps available make the choice of host product purchase a real effort in research prior to purchase.
(Article first published in abbreviated presentation as Tech Talk: Create Your Own App in About 60 Minutes with Appsbar.com – for Free!! on Blogcritics.org)

There are a few key few issues concerning the app marketplace. First is the exclusivity of an app to a particular platform. Often your favorite iPhone app is not available on Android or Windows or tablet platforms. Cost is an issue. While there are a number of apps in the free to three dollar range, there are apps with premium prices ranging from five to twenty dollars. The third issue is that perhaps the app or function you want or need is not currently available or doesn’t function in the way you need. I heard of a woman who wanted a “mirror” app so that she could see what she looked like on the fly– but she couldn’t figure out where to find that app.

Should you be so entrepreneurial as to want to create an app, you have a few choices. If you were smart enough to get into IT when in college or are taking classes for that, you know where you can make extra bucks — creating apps on the side. If you are a “geek freak”, you could dig into this as a DIY project and buy the books to create an app yourself. Or if you are like the rest of us (especially moi), you could hire a programmer and find out what it will cost. The price tag– even on the bargain end can be about $3000. Most of the pro apps cost about $10,000 and can cost up to $100,000 or more depending on the sophistication of the app. The time frame for app development can range from six weeks to three months. Until now, these were the only options you had.

The apps paradigm has shifted courtesy of Appsbar.com, an open-to-all-ages website that offers members the ability to quickly and easily build an app for a specific platform with lots of bells and whistles in about 30-60 minutes– and it’s free! Plus once you create the app, it’s funneled to the Apple, Android or Windows markets for others to download. It’s a win-win proposition. In a little more than 2 weeks since the site launched, eleven thousand apps have been created.

Appsbar.com is a new website that allows anyone of almost any age to build their own app on a variety of platforms including iPhone, Android and Windows and also get them into their respective markets. The “digital engagement” that appsbar.com provides allows you — as the user– to create the app for anything or everything you want– depending on how much time and creativity you bring to the table. Generally speaking, if you are thinking about a relatively simple app to build, it could be done in about 30 minutes. The more complex you want to make it, the longer it will take– 60 minutes is about the baseline. However if you get really creative and want the veritable kitchen sink, it could take longer.

Here’s what the site (and their press release) says you can create on an appsbar app
•Event Notifier – which delivers real-time or scheduled notifications to app users.
•Menu – allows creating of catalog of products or services.
•Form Builder – which can be used for customer service surveys, a restaurant to-go order, or answers to questions asked through the app.
•Social Interaction – adds the ability to share content within an app across social networks such as LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook.
•Soundboard – lets users create a unique “app ringtone” by uploading any sound which can play when a user shakes or taps their mobile device.
In addition, appsbar can also handle RSS, photos and videos like other similar services

This isn’t just for play boys and girls. This is serious business masquerading behind a fun game-like wizard that will be blowing away the competition in a very short time. As the community grows, watch what happens as the members connect, communicate and collaborate. It’s bound to create something exponentially better than anything out there. This isn’t just for consumers only– bloggers. brands, companies can create their own apps for micro-consumer engagement. There are a wealth of uses for this application wizard.

I was able to snag an interview with CEO/founder Scott Hirsch to talk about this new site and honestly- to ask a lot of questions because appsbar.com is as big a shift in paradigm in the app world as iPhone was to cell phones. Flat out truth, appsbar is on its’ way to changing the perspective of the marketplace and how apps are created and how much the public wants to be involved in the creation. So far there has been little public involvement until now because the public had no way to get involved in the interface of building an app. Hirsch and company have remedied that situation.

How?
1) it’s free
2) they created a very simple wizard to walk you through the building process so that anyone from 18 to 70+ can create their own app.
3) the collective imagination of the appsbar user community is creating new processes for and ways to create apps and the appsbar team is learning from that collective imagination just how to integrate or improve upon what the users have created or asked for to facilitate the building of the most customized app around at the phenomenal price of free plus your own time.

I had the opportunity to interview CEO Scott Hirsch about Appsbar.com and ask a slew of questions about the site– and app development; questions about funding, advertising and how long the site will remain free. The podcast provides answers to all these questions.

I tried the Appsbar.com wizard to create an Android app for my blog. The app creation wizard is easy to use and it’s a lot more fun than a Zynga game. Pick your platform and get started. Do realize that after you complete the first version of your app, you will want to upgrade it as you figure out all the options that you can add to the app and how to make sure that it integrates with your goal.

The community of members can share information and also ask for additional features (coupons, discounting capacity) and the Appsbar.com team will start working on it. While it’s taken me a little longer than the hour, it’s because I kept changing the visuals, the essential app is easily done in 60 minutes or less and I took longer because as I saw the options come up, I was playing with the integration of those options into the app. In other words, I was throwing the kitchen sink into the app and it was definitely fun. Check out the site www.appsbar.com

Thank you to Scott Hirsch of Appsbar.com and Joe McGurk/ Rubenstein PR for facilitating this interview which literally was done in 3 days.

Thanks to Chris Abraham & MarketingConversation.com too.

Stevie Wilson,
LA-Story.com

In the real world, we’re held accountable for our arrival time in the workplace. Gone are the days when high school students intuitively hop out of bed for the morning bell. Gone also are the days when collegiates laze in bed because they know that their noon professor doesn’t take attendance. A solid and frequent work presence is necessary to initiate relationships with colleagues and clients. Although punctuality in the office

place is up, according to a new CareerBuilder survey, the excuses for absence have increased and grown more…creative.

Traffic-related incidences clocked in as the top offense (30 percent), followed by lack of sleep (19 percent) and poor weather conditions (9 percent). Only 15 percent of workers in 2010 report tardiness at least once a week. This is down from 16 percent in 2009 and 20 percent in 2008 (CareerBuilder). Public transportation, wardrobe issues and dealing with pets round up the group.

Those are the run-of-the-mill excuses. Hiring managers say the following wildcards are becoming more and more common:

• My car was inhabited by a hive of bees and I couldn’t use the car for two hours until bees left.
• My cat attacked me.
• Botox took longer than I thought.
• My hair is hurting my head.
• I did not get any sleep because my boyfriend’s wife threw him out of the house.
• I knew I was going to be late, so I stopped to get donuts for everyone.
• My karma is not in sync today.
• I hurt myself taking a fork out of the dishwasher.
• I’m not late…the company clock is wrong.

Although entertaining, these excuses are unprofessional and inappropriate. If tardiness is inevitable it’s necessary to contact your immediate supervisor at first opportunity. Don’t make it a habit. Set your work clothes out the night before and stock up on quick breakfast options for the fridge. Research has found that a well-rested individual who’s prepared for the upcoming workday always performs better. Given the recent economic decline, it’s a pleasant surprise to see punctuality rising.

Rosemary Haefner, VP of human resources for CareerBuilder weighs in on why punctuality is up:

“Whether it is a result of fear associated with the economy or just a shift in attitude, workers over the last few years are doing a better job of managing their schedules and getting into the office at the designated time. While workers will sometimes be late due to circumstances out of their control, they need to be aware of their companies’ tardiness policies. Regardless of the reason, workers who are running late should always be honest with their managers.”

As Abraham Harrison is a viral firm, tardiness is essentially zero. We juggle clients, errands, appointments, meetings and vibrant social lives (if I do say so myself). Dealing with kids and school? A regular occurrence for those at Abraham Harrison. Our system works seamlessly as we celebrate that different parts of daily life need to work together. Although tardiness protocol is not as relevant at AH, it’s a vital part of work cultures. Punctuality eliminates office tension, improves dynamics between employees and their superiors and contributes to a much more productive atmosphere.

Brands need to participate in a community, either one that they have created or a preexisting one that they have joined. Online communities can contribute to the brand’s influence and growth big time.

It is not necessary for a brand to create its own community from scratch, but rather it should build on the already existing community of people who care about the brand. Cultivate it and let it grow. With the help of the people in it and the brand itself.

Engaging in an online community means always contributing, not taking. Always contribute to the welfare of the community not always directly to the welfare of the brand. In the end, whatever good you do for the community, reflects on the brand, and thus stregnthens it.

Rich Millington lists some key rules for engaging in an online community in his “How Brands Should Engage With Online Communities“:

• Respond to discussions about the brand. Most communities have a search feature. Use this to figure out what people are saying about the brand and respond appropriately. If you can’t respond to a complaint directly, ask the member how they would like it to be resolved.
  Participate in debates not connected to your products/services. This is easy, safe, territory and establishes your credibility as a serious participant in the community.
• Make friends. Be genuine members of the community. Make friends with others. Engage in the off-topic areas of the community. Congratulate people on their achievements. Suggest things in the community. Be a person first, a company representative second.
• Ask for opinions on products/services. Be careful with this. But, occasionally, ask people for their opinions on a specific aspect of a product or a service. Giving members options or choices works better than generic What do you think of our new {widget}.
• Ask for help. If you need people to help your company with something, ask for help.
• Offer something exclusive to the community. If your company has the means to offer some exclusive products or run a competition, contact the community admin and see if they are ok with you doing it.
• Give exclusive information. Give members of a community some exclusive information about your brand or product. This doesn’t have to be big, but just things that will solicit interest and start some rumours about your work.
• Contact the community owner/admin. When possible, contact the owner/admin of the community. Ask if you can do anything to help or if there are any special brand guidelines to be aware of.
• Disclosure. Use the signature to reveal that you are an employee of the company you work for. Where relevant, include it in the text of your messages e.g. “I agree, at Widgetco we tried both of these options….”

What Not To Do

• Have a company account. Accounts should always be registered under individual names, not company names. If you must, mix the two. EA_Phil being an example, but never use a WidgetCo as the name of your account.
• Promote. Any direct promotion is likely to have an adverse effect on your efforts.
• Subtly promote. An entire category of pretending to participate but doing so in such a way as to promote your brand.
• Criticize. The rules are stricter for company representatives here than they are for the average member. I’d say never criticize anyone, for anything, at anytime. Especially don’t attack a competitor.
  Engage in religious/political debate. It’s just not worth it no matter how right you are.

Growth is what we always seek in everything we do or from something we are participating in. We aspire to grow, in terms of business and in personality as humans.

What is the most necessary thing for us and for businesses to grow?

The first thing we need in order to ensure growth is space where we can stretch and grow tall or grow wide. A place that can hold a larger volume of us and a greater area that we can eventually occupy.

Take a bonsai for example. It is an art of planting miniature trees from Japan. These bonsai are very beautiful, but their very obvious trait is being small. The trees are confined to a small tray or pot so they won’t grow as big as it they are naturally supposed to be. It is deprived of space so it stays small.

This is the same for a man who lives alone, someone who doesn’t have friends, doesn’t have place to go. A man that doesn’t go out ever and a man that has no connection to the social world. He’s a man without friends. This man won’t grow socially because he has no where to go and no one to grow with. The bonsai is also like a business operating in a small city, without affiliates, a business that considers the boundaries of the city a dead end.

Social media helps us break the walls, the boundaries, the pot that is preventing us as human beings or as businessees to grow. It stretches our dwelling place, our reach and the place in which we can move to and fro, therefore giving us more opportunities and a larger space.

Social media solves our issues of being confined to a small place by giving us a tool, a powerful tool that lets us explore the social world and be connected to the rest of it. By being connected to it we are learning to adopt to the wide world and with this we are having a larger place to grow, the whole world.

Growth will not be possible if we are confined to a small definite area, break free, breathe and explore the wonders of growing.

On Tuesday between 7pm and 10PM I will be talking to the kind folks and members of E.Factor at 37 W. 26th St.  NY, NY 10010.  Sorry for the late notice but I have the time now!  If you’re in NYC and want to learn how to do all of your own new media and digital ONLINE PR — The E.Factor Presents – Do It Yourself PR. (via Chris Abraham)

Miss Stephanie Frasco has been kind enough to invite me to speak to discuss on how to “learn from the masters (does she mean me?) on how to take publicity and press into your own hands.” If we have not met yet, I would love to meet you on Tuesday. I am even going to try to get to the city early so that I can say “hello.” After the meeting, though, I am going to be pulling a Cinderella by getting back to the train to head back down to Washington!

The E.Factor Presents – Do It Yourself PR

Being an Entrepreneur is only half the battle.  Getting the exposure and press is crucial to your success.  Learn from the masters on how to take publicity and press into your own hands.

Date:  Tuesday, July 21st
Time: 7:00PM – 10:00PM
Venue: 37 W. 26th St.
NY, NY 10010
Fee:  Free for Premium Members; $10 for Basic Members

Chris Abraham, President and COO of Abraham Harrison
Chris Abraham, President and COO of Abraham Harrison, is a leading expert in online public relations with a focus on blogger outreach, blogger engagement, and Internet reputation management. A pioneer in online social networks and publishing, with a natural facility for anticipating the next big thing, Chris is an Internet analyst, web strategy consultant and advisor to the industries’ leading firms. He specializes in web2.0 technologies, including content syndication, online collaboration, blogging, and consumer generated media.

Prior to starting Abraham Harrison, Chris was a member of the Interactive Team at Edelman Public Affairs in Washington, DC, consulting clients such as Wal-Mart, Shell, and GE on blogger and social media strategy. Before Edelman, Chris was Technology Strategist for New Media Strategies, a pioneer in online brand promotion and protection with clients including Sci-Fi Channel, Buena Vista, TomTom, Paramount Pictures, Coca-Cola, McDonalds, Disney, Reebok, EA, RCA, and NBC.

FEE:  FREE for Premium Members, $10 for Basic Members

By Lauren Cook: Never has the power of Twitter been more evident than in the last few weeks and months. Once known only by “techies” and early adopters, this micro-blogging site is now slowly infiltrating into the mainstream and more importantly, affecting the way many of us communicate, listen, and learn.

For those not familiar with Twitter, here’s a quick introduction: Twitter is a free social networking service that allows users to send and read each other’s updates (known as “tweets”) that are limited to 140 characters in length (think two sentences at most). At its inception in 2006, Twitter (then known as “Obvious”) was originally created as a tool to be used internally by the podcasting company, Odeo. Two years later, over 3 million individuals worldwide have Twitter accounts and the rate in which news spreads has shortened to, well, 140 characters.

Initially, the goal of Twitter was to allow users to share with their “followers” exactly what they were doing at that moment (ie: “It’s Monday morning and I’m having Cheerios for breakfast”). A common misconception among those who aren’t familiar with Twitter believe this is still the case with the micro-blogging site. In fact, Twitter has grown and expanded and its capabilities have far surpassed solely communicating the mundane details of everyday life.

For instance, take the recent Mumbai attacks in November, 2008. During the three-day battle that left more than 100 dead, social-networking services such as Twitter and Flickr were flooded with news, rumors and pictures of the tragedy by what is now termed as “citizen journalists” — users on Twitter that were tweeting breaking news faster than mainstream media could pick up the same information on the news wires. Many people now describe the situation in Mumbai as “Twitter’s moment.” As a result, major media outlets now uses Twitter to help communicate the real-time public sentiment on various issues, such as Presidential elections, natural disasters, and current events.

Abraham & Harrison has been at the forefront of the Twitter phenomenon since its public offering, sucessfully leveraging the power of micro-blogging for many of its clients. One only has to take a quick look at Abraham & Harrison’s President and COO, Chris Abraham, who is known as one of the top Twitterers of Social Media news, having over 2,700 followers, to understand Abraham & Harrison’s extensive knowledge of cutting edge social media tools.

A fantastic example of Abraham & Harrison’s knowledge of Twitter is illustrated by our work with the client, The Fresh Air Fund, a non-profit agency providing free summer vacations in the country to more than 1.7 million New York City children from disadvantaged communities.

With Abraham & Harrison’s help, The Fresh Air Fund created a Twitter profile to communicate with other NPOs, current volunteers, potential families interested in The Fresh Air Fund, and donors. In just three months of tweeting, The Fresh Air Fund Twitter profile has over 600 followers and has reached thousands of individuals who they otherwise would never have been in contact with. Not only does Abraham & Harrison help guide

The Fresh Air Fund on how to best utilize Twitter in a respectful and value-driven way, Chris Abraham is also eager to help “retweet” The Fresh Air Fund’s Twitter content, meaning that over 3,000 users are seeing this non-profit’s messaging, creating a critical relationship with The Fresh Air Fund that results in support of the NPO. Even more impressive, The Fresh Air Fund was recently nominated to be a part of the “Top Ten List of Twitterers Who Will Change The World” — a fantastic feat for an NPO who has only been a part of the Twittosphere for three months.

Are you thinking about joining Twitter? One word of warning: You can’t become a Twitter sensation overnight. As Chris Abraham says, “Growing a social media profile is like growing a coral reef: after seeding the reef, there are so many things that need to happen before a reef blooms ‘in its own.’” With Twitter, time and commitment are key in order to position yourself as a valuable addition to the community. “You need to be generous — give more than you take — and you need to be committed to the long term,” Chris advises. And it’s not all about your follower numbers.

For instance, once could argue that Lance Armstrong isn’t a valuable member of the Twitter community given that he has over 23,000 followers, but is only following approximately 40 other Twitterers (an improvement since the last time I checked, when he was following a mere 2 users: his Livestrong organization, and one other member of the Livestrong Executive Team).

Twitter isn’t about just talking about yourself, accepting every follower, and never engaging in actual dialogue. Like every other social networking tool, it’s about forming relationships, providing valuable content, listening and (like Chris said), giving more than taking.

There’s an unspoken code of ethics followed by well-respected Twitterers, and a strategy that can help you reach your customers and supporters on Twitter while not opening yourself up to criticism and in extreme cases, retaliation (ever heard of the Motrin Mommies ?). The power of Twitter is increasing daily — do you know how to harness it? Let Abraham & Harrison show you how.

I accidentally clicked on an expandable banner while I was reading my email on Yahoo! and went to DoMoreForPets.com.  It’s got two overall versions.  One for dogs and one for cats.

I love cats, but I’m a devoted dog over.  So I figured I’d check it out.  It’s sponsored by Purina ProPlan

Overall, I like the way it’s done.  The masthead ad is a bit too big, and you can’t register for it because you’re already signed in via email.  So you can’t “join” it.  Ergo, Purina is missing out an opportunity to develop a direct relationship with those that get involved with it.

The sections are “Photos”, which seemed to be pulled from Flickr, Q & A, which can lead to direct answers to people’s questions: “Forums”,  which leads people to Yahoo! groups; “Blogs”, which have evidently been selected by people from Yahoo! or Purina; “Posts from our favorite blogs”, which seems redundant but is based on specific posts, “How Do You Do More”, which seems to be a storytelling feature on helping pets; and “Pet Rescue”, a database of activities geared toward that topic.

Some of the stuff is repetitive and it will fail to develop a sense of community, but pet owners are passionate enough to get involved in various ways.

A decent effort that misses on some points.

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.

Deloitte, along with Beeline Labs and the Society of New Communications Research, has come out with a study showing the current challenges and rewards of today’s online corporate created “communities”. It’s created a decent amount of chatter, which is not surprising considering that this industry is in its nascent stages and everyone is trying to figure it out.

The survey, entitled “2008 Tribalization Survey” gathered information from more than 140 responding organizations in the business to business, business to consumer, and non-profit sectors. Some of the corporate communities have more than 10,000 members; others have less than 100. Those numbers weren’t put into context from what I can see.

I’ve looked around at the commentary on this and have been able to glean a decent amount of info. Much of what I’ve found confirms conventional thought (or at least my thoughts) with the smattering of a few surprises.

Ben Worthen of the Wall Street Journal Biztech blog starts out by writing…

“One of the hot investments for businesses these days is online communities that help customers feel connected to a brand. But most of these efforts produce fancy Web sites that few people ever visit. The problem: Businesses are focusing on the value an online community can provide to themselves, not the community.”

…but he doesn’t offer much supporting evidence for his opinion with the exception of siting stats on membership – 35% of respondees have less than 100 members; less than 25% have more than 100%. Those numbers show no context. But it’s my guess that he’s probably correct in that many efforts are too company-centric and not customer-centric. That’s a common criticism that community developers should take heed. While I won’t go so far to say that communities are 100% about the members/customers, I will say that they are about the customer first and the way those customers benefit from being part of the community. Companies obviously have to expect to benefit, but they need to do it through the eyes of their members and not by dominating the conversation.

I talked to Lois Kelly of Beeline to get some clarification on things. She blogs over at FogHound and is author of the book Beyond Buzz. It seems most of the respondents to this survey were relatively satisfied with their community developments at this point. But one of the biggest problems companies have had could perhaps be derived from a lack of having a clear purpose. She explained,”Some companies think that all you have to do is set up the community with the technology, and that’s it”. How true. Yet another version of “build it and they will come”.

Her colleague Francois Gossieaux noted,

“One interesting discovery was the apparent inconsistency between what organizations set as goals and what they actually measure,” commented Francois Gossieaux, a partner at Beeline Labs, and Senior Fellow with the Society for New Communications Research. “We also noticed mismatches between what respondents set as goals and the investments they actually make, as well as between their goals and the talent that they deploy against the community initiatives.”

This suggests to me that many companies are jumping on the bandwagon of community development without a roadmap. Or perhaps a roadmap that they’ve developed without any outside help from consultants who know what they’re doing. Sort of like the client who loves the new look of their ad agency created website – it’s all flash on the front page and now search engines can’t find it.

One of the major problems organizations had in creating effective communities is that 45% of respondents found that it had become difficult to find the time to manage them. Indeed, 30% of them had only one person working part time on these initiatives. In most cases, that’s clearly not enough. And, if an organization is simply pumping out marketing messages, then all the time in the world won’t save it.

My guess is that, in cases like this, management is taking a relatively young staffer and shoving them in the role, telling them what to say and how to say it.

The greatest difficulty found was that 51% felt it was difficult to get members involved. I’m going to give a lot of these communities a pass on this, to an extent. A lot of people sign up for stuff and never play an active role; others act as the “lurkers”, gaining benefits but contributing little. But 51% is too high and these organizations will need to learn how to create greater involvement.

About a third (34%) have had a hard time attracting members. This one is hard to put in context. There can be so many factors from the community tech structure to the industry that the community is in to the demographics of the likely members. But I see that number and I recognize an opportunity for all of us to capitalize on…as long as we understand the potential member base. What makes them tick. That’s why demographics can be so important.

A lot of the news was good. In these early stages, community members are helping the brand from what they gain in the community via word of mouth (35%) and increasing brand awareness (28%). Not sure how those were measured though and Lois didn’t either off the top of her head, but intangible ROI is still ROI.

I was surprised though, that only 24% felt that their efforts increased customer loyalty. It’s not the number per se, but it’s the fact that I would think loyalty would come before awareness and WOM that expand beyond the user base. Hmmm…

There are a lot of take aways from this study. Some that stand out:

Companies need to understand beforehand what the concept of community is about before they dip their toes in them.

It’s not about the technology, it’s not about how it’s an automatic thing to join, it’s not a marketing message delivery system.

You need to have a dedicated person who understands what they’re doing leading the way.

Membership benefits can be a constantly evolving thing.

A marketing plan for a community must elicit interest form member who will take an active interest in the success of the community. In fact, two of the most important benefits for members mentioned were the ability for community members to connect with other like-minded people (54%) and the ability for members to help others (43%) – a sure sign of selflessness.

In the end, Lois said that the community itself is not there as a direct moneymaking entity. She’s right. And that may be why companies are struggling with it.

I’m going to go against the orthodoxy of my fellow social media practitioners. I’m going to commit heresy. I’m going upset the apple cart of the proverbial echo chamber.

The new 2008 version of Where the Hell is Matt YouTube video isn’t going to live up to it’s intended purpose. It will be something that many of us will talk about, blog about, pontificate about. Then it will go away.

Here’s the video if you haven’t watched it:

But that’s it.

Don’t get me wrong. I like the concept. I’m not against the concept. I, like many of you, find the idea of a this young American traveling throughout the world, visiting places, getting to know the people, the culture. And video taping himself, dancing, often with others, often many others. And often with children.There’s something touching about Matt Harding dancing in Jerusalem in one shot, on the West Bank in the next. There’s something inspirational seeing him dance with children in Zambia or Morocco or Bhutan.Regarding the “rules” of social media, it was done almost flawlessly. The company didn’t require him to wear a Stride shirt or hawk the gum or promote it in any way. All they got was a mention at the end in the credits. It was right in line with what I’ve been reading on all these blogs for the past two years. Subtle, not in your face. Makes us feel good.But that’s not enough. Not in today’s world. An ironic thought, considering the theme of the video. Here’s why.

It creates little brand awareness

One can watch the video several times and not have any idea that it’s a marketing effort by Stride Gum. In fact, I bet the vast majority of people that view it and/or forward it have no idea that there was a company behind this. The little credit line at the end isn’t enought. Sorry, social media folks, but that’s he way it is.

Gavin Heaton says:

There are 4 million people around the world willing to sit through almost 5 minutes of video. These people are receptive to the simple brand message offered by Stride Gum. That is 20 million minutes of brand engagement — opt-in.

Gavin, even if all 4 million (now it’s up to 6 million) viewed the entire clip, if they don’t know that this is in somehow related to Stride Gum, then it ain’t brand engagement. They’re simply watching a cool video on YouTube. Brand engagement means viewers must be aware that they are, in fact, engaging a brand. Ergo…

It has no brand connection

I’m betting the vast majority of people who watch this video are enamored by it. Hell, I am as well. Big time. Seeing all those people dance with Matt. I mean, CK’s in joyous tears over it. Yet she wrote a blog post about it…but didn’t even mention the sponsor’s name.

Dancing with some sort of small primates in Madagascar has no connection to chewing gum.

Neither does dancing amidst red crabs on Christmas Island.

I mean, if Matt wore one of those shirts from Stride – the one’s that everyone is trilled that he didn’t wear – in every, say, 12th location…so what? It would have helped the 6 million of us viewers understand what was behind this. The entire video itself it inspirational enough to overcome that. A little promotion here and there is not shoving it down anyone’s throat. In fact, Matt could have worn other T-shirts as well, saying things like “End Violence Now” or “Help Defeat Malaria”. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN COOL.

So, yeah. So what if an occasional Stride T-shirt shot pisses off 18 social media marketers who want and demand a false notion of purity.

If you don’t know that there’s a brand behind it, or even related to it, then…

It creates no brand affinity

We all love Matt now. Don’t we? We think he’s a fine young man. We want to grow up/be like/have a son like him some day.

We imagine what it must be like to be able to travel to Tonga and Iceland and the Cape of Good Hope. We want to have that freedom. We want to be able to experience the world.

The affinity here is with Matt. This fine young man.

What was the name of that sponsor?

For the past two months I’ve been in a mental funk when it comes to blogging. Maybe it’s because I got caught up a bit too much following the political primary season and felt that I’d end up focusing too much on politics.

But now I have Brian Solis, Loic Le Meur, and Robert Scoble to thank for getting me back into the game.

Perhaps the one I should thank the most is Loic because I found much of what he wrote in response to Brian’s TechCrunch article to be misdirected toward his own experiences.

It started with Brian’s May 25 article in TechCrunch “PR Secrets for Startups”. Now that headline itself is a bit silly as it sounds as if it’s a headline used in an overhyped industry rag, but the meat of the artilce is pretty much straightforward. He doesn’t lay out secrets at all, just sound advice. And while I don’t agree with the fine line depicted between PR 1.0 and PR 2.0, but there is no question that all of strategic marketing communications is undergoing a transformation and that the internet – and social media in particular – are playing key roles in that.

In the article, Brian outlines a series of points that serve a great guideline for most younger startups. Loic tells us that Brian has many valid point in his post and that Brian knows what he’s talking about and that he really likes Brian and then he proceeds to write that what Brian is saying is bullshit.

Well, I like Loic and think he has many valid points and he knows what he’s talking about, but what Loic is saying is bullshit. Loic’s advice is correct for a finite amount of CEOs and a finite amount of startups from a finite amount of industries. It’s solid advice in certain circumstances.

I’ll start out with Loic’s major point:

Get a community and focus on your friends is the way to go.

Good grief.

It’s not that this is directly wrong, it’s that it’s ridiculous in that it’s a practically impossible to accomplish task to achieve in the amount of time needed to boost a start up. In fact, formulating one’s own community can be as difficult as successfully launching a start up in the first place. Establishing a community can take years – Loic himself talks of how it took him eight years – and there’s no guarantee that the community will stick.

Most prominent blogger don’t have communities. They may think they do, but they don’t. They have readers instead. Most companies don’t have communities. They have customers. Most products and services don’t have communities. They have users. Cultivating a community is similar to cultivating a loyal customer base…only more difficult. It takes time, it takes energy, it takes a special touch. More often than not, it’s an elusive accomplishment.

It’s not as if one can go down to the local K-Mart and buy a community – as if it comes in a box – one that’s on sale this week only for the low price of $79.95 – twenty dollars of the regular price of $99.95.

No, there’s no Easy Button to press in getting a community. As commenter Jeremy Toeman points out “Loic, I think your assessment is fairly biased to your personal experience. The truth is most companies and individuals aren’t nearly as well connected as you are, and to just dismiss PR by saying “just go build a community” is frankly, naive.” Which is soon followed by Vinh, “Where can i get a community? Is it expensive? What happens if I need audience now?” Bingo.

Loic himself proves the difficulty in establishing a community by writing “I took me 8 years since I started blogging in 2003 to have a community and it is no marketing.” First of all, he’s so exhausted from establishing that community that he’s added wrong. It’s either 5 years since 2003 or 8 years since 2000. Whether it’s 5 or 8 (and I believe it’s 8), that’s way to long of a time period for a CEO to wait to effectively kick in as he or she is launching a startup.

Allen Stern has two great comments regarding Loic’s claim…

First, he points out that it takes more than a desire to have a community to actually accomplish the huge task of establishing a community. “Loic – it’s important to remember that not everyone has the “instant-on” connections you do today. While I agree with what you are suggesting about a community completely – not everyone has “instant-on” that you do.” He follow this with a clear statement of total sense. “This is why I suggest you work on building your network while you build your startup. Don’t expect to finish your product and have a network ready to launch it for you.” Words of wisdom.

The reality is that the essence of community building is something that’s often elusive. One needs talent, time, luck, and a topic or series or topics that engender an interaction amongst readers. That’s rare indeed. Loic has been able to establish this over several years through hard work, a warm and colorul personality, and an effective writing style. He also benefits from the fact that he’s launched a company that, at its core, is at the heart of social media.

Community is one of the most dangerously overused terms in social media. It’s often bandied about by people who treat the subject matter as if communities already exist or are readily available. And this then underplays the importance – and the essence of community.

Next, I’ll look to take on the Brian vs. Loic debate point by point.

This morning, Norman Birnbach wrote an article wherein he suggests that I emphasize giving swag:

One of his tips is to “Give swag” — a point that Chris Abraham emphasized in a recent interview. The reason is that blogging is often a second career and there are few perks so swag can make a difference to get bloggers to respond.

He is not wrong, but I think I need to clarify my definition of “gift-giving.” I don’t emphasize giving away swag, necessarily — what I do emphasize is gifting — and giving ’til it hurts, “What a gift needs to be is super-valuable to the recipient — the value of a gift is based on perception.”

The following excerpt is from Be Generous, Not Stingy, When Engaging Bloggers (via Chris Abraham):

“Gifts don’t have to be free stuff — like books or iPods — gifts can be in the form of knowledge, intellectual property, insider access, or blogger exclusives; gifts can be informational, gifts can solve a community problem, or customer service issues.

What a gift needs to be is super-valuable to the recipient — the value of a gift is based on perception. You need to be willing to give the gift that the blogger wants and not the gift you are prepared or want to give.

What is not cool is half measures or crappy, throw-away gifts, the Internet version of key rings and a bowl of candy. Offering throttled, limited or restricted demos (without access to the full version when it is released); offering a single book chapter (without the whole book being an option); or granting “exclusive” access to something that is already released is just plain lame and will result in severe negative consequences.

It is pretty bad to not give a gift when you reach out to bloggers just because you feel entitled or represent a fancy client but it is worse to be stingy about the gift you do give. Make sure the gift is generous — give until it hurts.”

Andy Sernovitz’s blog’s name says it all, and definitely reflects my response to reading this: Damn, I Wish I’d Thought of That!, especially in his post Instant Word of Mouth for Restaurants. From our experience doing blogger outreach and blogger gift-giving, this is on-the-money advice you should all consider (Via Chris Abraham — Because the Medium is the Message):

Give every lunch customer 6 desserts to take back to the office.

Give them one desert and they will eat it.

Give them 6 and they will to announce to everyone that they just ate at your restaurant and you gave them snacks to share.

Lesson: One free sample is interesting. Lots of samples turn customers into evangelists.

Firstly, while we at Abraham Harrison do online publicity and blogger outreach exclusively, this advice rings true. First, let me define what we mean by “free samples” and “gifts” in our context.

Gifts don’t have to be free stuff — like books or iPods — gifts can be in the form of knowledge, intellectual property, insider access, or blogger exclusives; gifts can be informational, gifts can solve a community problem, or customer service issues.

What a gift needs to be is super-valuable to the recipient — the value of a gift is based on perception. You need to be willing to give the gift that the blogger wants and not the gift you are prepared or want to give.

What is not cool is half measures or crappy, throw-away gifts, the Internet version of key rings and a bowl of candy. Offering throttled, limited or restricted demos (without access to the full version when it is released); offering a single book chapter (without the whole book being an option); or granting “exclusive” access to something that is already released is just plain lame and will result in severe negative consequences.

It is pretty bad to not give a gift when you reach out to bloggers just because you feel entitled or represent a fancy client but it is worse to be stingy about the gift you do give. Make sure the gift is generous — give until it hurts.

For example, with Survivor Corps, not only did we make lots of full-chapters available for download and sharing, but we are making paper hardcover copies available to anyone and everyone who wants one — and the offer is transferable.

While the wide selection of chapters may be generous, offering only a partial book would easily be considered to be stingy and cheap if we were not willing and able to drop-ship complete copies of the book at a moment’s notice without ever demanding a quid pro quo.

Most of the bloggers might very readily blog about I Will Not Be Broken were I to only send a smattering of chapters; even so, the risk associated with not making copies freely available would be intense and is not worth it.

The cost of a hundred books sent to important niche online influencers who have promised to blog about Survivor Corps, whether they ever do is negligible compared to being pegged as cheap and ungrateful.

Even a blogger who has an advertising rate sheet and who would never consider doing a review without being sponsored or paid are often willing to blog on behalf of our clients – when we get the right balance between influencer-targeting, message-modeling, gift-giving, blogger activation, and following-up.

It works because this is relationship and conversation marketing. There are real people behind those blogs who are sick and tired of not being treated like people and if you can get the mixture right, magic happens.

When we do blogger public relations (often called blogger relations or BR), blogger messaging, or online outreach, it is essential to do everything possible to make sure that the blogger’s free spirit is appreciated and also realize that the blogger is under zero responsibility to blog about your client at all; and, for the same reason that bloggers are pursued by us PR and marketing professionals — their influence, platform, and voice — bloggers are fully capable of turning against you and your client.

Luckily, bloggers are people, marketers are people, even PR professionals are people; therefore, even if something goes wrong during an aggressive messaging and PR compaign, which they often do if you’re being aggressive and passionate, a human touch and human engagement usually does the trick to smooth feathers, clear the air, and make things nice.

Even when clearing the air isn’t possible, it is important to be brave and a little shameless: when you’re in this sort of business, 1% or more of all recipients will have a cow and there is nothing you can do about it, no matter how much attention, love, adoration, and mea culpas you’re willing or able to invest.

For the Survivor Corps campaign, we have been pretty aggressive. Even before we have delivered our first copy of I Will Not Be Broken to a single blogger, we have received almost 50 blog mentions and posts. Even if we had suffered a couple negative posts as a tithe for the 50 positive mentions, I believe it would still have been worth it.

If you need more proof you can read the mentions that bloggers have written so far about Jerry White’s book, I Will Not Be Broken, collected well before any actual books arrived via Fedex to the bloggers’ door, you will see that Blogger PR is well worth all of the time and trouble required to make it work right.

Let me know if you have any questions about what we do or how we do it. I would be very happy to tell you more if you contact me at Abraham Harrison.

The Association of National Advertisers and Forrester Reseearch are pointing out the 62% of marketers now believe that TV advertising has become less effective over the past two years.  That’s an amazing number.  Hopefully it will serve as a clarion call to those same marketers and to the ad agencies that serve them  Sometimes I think that many marketers see the changes that are happening but choose to not adapt because they assume no one else will.  But when statistics showing more than 60% of marketers showing doubt on th most well known medium for advertising, it means that they can’t delay changes in methods and mediums.

This is a major reason why the same survey had 87% of marketers planning to spend more on web advertising this year.  Or that eMarketer is saying that ad spend should reach $28.5 billion, up 23% over last year.  That includes an 74% increase in spending on online video.

The odd thing is that the models for online video advertising are not even close to being set.  Pre-roll is a mess.  Net shows aren’t necessarily a huge success.  And we keep on hearing that people are looking to interact with their friends on social networks and not with brands.

Yesterday, on Twitter, new follower Mike Keliher (@mjkeliher) pointed out how he wouldn’t tolerate being forced to see an pre-roll ad in order to view a 15 second story. When I asked him why he felt so strongly, his answer was:

@jptrenn 99.9% of the time: entirely irrelevant. More importantly, disrespectful of my time.

I’m no where nearly as absolute on that. I realize that these media properties need to make money and I see pre-roll as a legitimate concept in theory. Still, I don’t blame him for feeling that way. Media properties apply pre-roll entirely wrong, with no concern for the viewer. So here’s a few suggestions. Strong suggestions.

1) Above all, don’t put pre-roll on tragic stories

The last thing I want to see when I click on a story about that tragic accident that killed 68 people, including 23 children, is a frigging commercial for indigestion. While other times pre roll ads are inconvenient, at times like this, it is completely offensive.

2) Don’t put pre-roll on breaking stories

Sorry, but while these stories are the ones most likely to be clicked on, when people click on them, they often so so with as sense of urgency. To the viewer, the content is compelling and they don’t want an interruption. It could hurt the advertiser as it hurts the viewer experience.

3) Make the ads relevant

If I go to view an add about baseball spring training, give me a travel ad to Florida or Arizona. Or one about sports. Don’t just something up there. As Mike says, 99.9% irrelevant.

4) One pre roll per user session please

Otherwise, it begins to ruin the experience.

5) If more than one…

…then make sure there’s about 4-6 news stories viewed between ads. And don’t show the same one twice.

I write all of this because I understand a believe that most news sites thankfully don’t come with subscription fees. They make their money by advertising. So I’m trying to find a reasonable balance.

What are your thoughts?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

I just asked a question via Twitter. And I’ll repeat it here.

Question for social media types…many complain about interference from legal dept. when it comes to social media, especially with UGC…so, are there any conferences, events, seminars, etc. that bring the two groups together to understand one another more?

Not to toot my own horn, but that’s a good question. And it’s one that needs to be answered.

Marketers are essentially in charge of defining, promoting, enhancing, and protecting the brand. Lawyers are essentially in charge of protecting the entity, the business, and, yes, the brand.

I got to thinking about this because social media strategists often, as part of their strategy, enlist, encourage, or allow a brands users to play a role in the branding. I got to thinking of a recent story involving a group of car enthusiasts putting together a picture calendar showing off their cars. They calendars were to be sold on CafePress. But there was some sort of communication screw up and it was halted I believe. Some social media strategists mistakenly blamed the car company.

But then I thought…wait…if the legal department did have reservations in this situation, is that necessarily a bad thing? Think about it….

What if one of the participants of an unsolicited consumer generated media effort has let’s say a problem. Like a police record. I mean, let’s say he’s the type of guy who could get nailed by Chris Hansen of Nightline. You know, a pedophile.

Ridiculous? If you think so, you’re missing the point. The point is that legal department and marketing departments are going to have to understand one another and work together to both reasonably promote and protect the brand through social media. Cutting edge vs. overly cautious won’t do. Lawyer potentially nixing or at least getting in the way of potentially effective programs or frustrated marketing types angrily rolling their eyes at the stupidity and interference of the legal department will only serve to stifle the brand, or, potentially worse, leave it unprotected.

Back in December, I made put forth my predictions for 2008, with #11 being “Conversion attribution will be a big bone of contention”. That’s about to happen. Only now, thanks to Microsoft, it’s called “Engagement Mapping”.

Conversion attribution and/or engagement mapping is basically this. When we buy something, it is often because we’ve been inluenced by several marketing messages from different channels. The online arena offers little measurable sense of exactly what made someone buy, but an (almost) exact sense of where someone came from (a search? a banner?). So, conversion attribution and/or engagement mapping is basically is the call for the revenue from an ecommerce transaction to be dispersed amongst the marketing channels according to some sort of formulaic attribution system of that tries to weigh the influence of each channel. In Microsoft’s version – I’ll stick with engagement mapping – only online channels are mentioned.

This seems to address a issue of real concern, but it fails to address the whole picture. As a result, we’re likely to see an upcoming battle of Titans.

The problem I have with it is that Microsoft will be trying to implement industry wide measurement metrics – more than likely specifically designed in its favor – to get inside our heads and measure the amount of influence all of these marketing channels had when we buy something. I’d rather see something like this worked out by a consortium of companies in the online advertising space.

In all honesty, the current system is a skewed. In the pay-for performance world, which is heavily slanted toward search, we never really know what factors led to that click. I’ve long believed in search, but have had a hard time thinking a small text ad worked wonders all by itself.

Controversy will rise up big time if this becomes standard because Micorsoft’s rival, Google, will stand to lose the most. And that loss could be huge. That’s because EM will be taking into account online display advertising such as banners and boxes and skyscrapers. They have been much derided with their low click thru rates, something that I’ve always have felt was unfair. To me, it’s never taken into account any branding aspects or simple enhancement of name recognition. While Microsoft obviously has a foothold in the search arena, they are players in display advertisng as well. This will be even more true if their attempts to buy Yahoo prove to be successful.

Now it will be Microsoft’s challenge to convince the ad industry to play along. Advertisers – angencies and internal marketing managers may go for EM because it could allegedly give them a more quantifiable measure of marketing ROI spend.

But this cuts right into Google’s business model. They’ll be losing money because yesterday, someone saw a banner ad for a product and today they’re on Google because they put in a industry related keyword and came up with a text ad. But there really is no telling how much weight each played in the purchase. At best, I don’t think we’re there yet.

Microsoft’s plan is short on detail. Look for a lot of headed discussion on this issue. I’ll be following it intensely.

Let me first reveal that Abraham Harrison LLC, my employer and my company, is an online reputation management company — online reputation protection, promotion, defensive SEO, domain name strategy, and crisis management. That said, I could not be happier because online reputation management is apparently the new black, at least according to Techdirt, Forget Publicists, All The Cool Kids Have Online Reputation Managers:

It’s been well-documented that Google has become something of the mythical permanent record teachers warned you about as kids. There are plenty of stories about people losing jobs or discovering dubious information about dates using Google. A few years back, services popped up claiming that they could scrub your online record clean — though, how successful such services could be was certainly called into question. However, it appears that those services have morphed into a new, somewhat scary, category called online reputation management. While it’s to be expected that corporations might have people monitoring online reputations, it’s quite another thing to have individuals hire firms to do the same thing.

(Tip of the hat for the article to Scott Burns)

I have tried to explain defensive SEO to clients on pitches and here are a couple examples and analogies I have used in the past. I promise to come up with better analogies, but this is what I have at the moment!

Rockets on Israeli Settlements

Most of the time, defensive SEO is sort of like cleaning up a crime scene. There is a lot of manual labor involved in that cleaning. It requires pressurized water hoses, clorox, mops, panes of glass, lots of spackle, and some paint. The goal after a crime has been committed, is to return the scene to normalcy — as if nothing happened here.

Unfortunately, during a crisis situation, the crime is ongoing. I compare it to the daily rocket fire from Lebanon and the Gaza Strip falling randomly on Jewish settlements. Bombing of this sort is random and destructive and done not as a targeted attack but is known as “firing for effect,” which is to say as terrorism and a way of unsettling the settlers.

When it is the security and confidence of a community that is at stake and when there is no way to be sure that the attacks are ever over, returning these settlements in a state of destruction is unacceptable. There are Israeli task forces that have the single-minded job of responding to any and all rocket attacks immediately after the emergency responders leave. The trucks are mobile housing contractors. They have the ability to actively and quickly clean up any and all signs of a destructive attack within hours of the event.

All shrapnel pock marks are spackled, all burn marks are painted over, and all broken glass is replaced. While this may just be a futile act, it is essential for this kind of defensive strategy to continue and continue. Why? Well, this is a game of hearts and minds. This is a game of keeping up appearances to make sure that all the settlers feel safe in their every day life, day after day. This perceived safety is better than none at all. The reality of the day-to-day is enough; however, living in a home with broken windows and the pock marks of shrapnel is too close, especially for neighbors and new settlers.

Cleaning up these attacks daily and footing the bill and resources is the cost of doing business. It is a budgeted line-item, equally important to actually finding ways, both diplomatic and military, to stop the attacks some day.

If one were to wait for the attacks to be over, strategically, ignoring the tactical, then those same hearts and minds might very well decide that living in the settlements, living in Israel, or even moving to Israel is an unacceptable decision.

One must never underestimate perception of safety and its power over both settlers, government, citizens, visitors, tourists, and immigrants; same may be said with a company’s or person’s reputation: investors, employees, relationships, opportunities, and families may become insecure enough to abandon ship.

El Al Jumbo Jets Chaffing and Flaring the Skies

Unfortunately, one cannot hide El Al’s new Boeing 777, the world’s largest twinjet, when it takes off and lands. Not yet anyway. The 777 is a sitting target. One cannot do much about it. What can one do? Well, there are several things: you can have sensors that check to see if there are any service-to-air missiles either locked on or inbound — that’s a start. You can also make sure that your pilots have been trained in evasive maneuvers, which, unfortunately, are limited in jumbo jets. At the end of the day, however, you need to just make sure that the jet isn’t accessible to any SAMs.

El Al commercial aircraft are outfitted not with cloaks of invisibility but with “softkill” countermeasures. A countermeasure is a system (usually for a military application) designed to prevent sensor-based weapons from acquiring and/or destroying a target. Softkill measures generally interfere with the signature of the target to be protected. One or more of the following actions may be taken to provide softkill: reduction of the 777′s signature, augmentation of the 777′s signature, and the cloning or imitation of the 777′s signature. These techniques are used to generally prevent lock-on of a threat sensor to the commercial aircraft.

It is based on altering the signature of the target by either concealing the platform signature or enhancing the signature of the background, thus minimizing the contrast between the two. Some of these techniques include IR-decoy flares, serving to counter infrared-guided missiles (SAM), and radar decoys, in the form of chaff.

The Internet is very similar. Search engines are doubly so. It is impossible to stop flying. It is impossible to disappear the aircraft. And, it is impossible to delete, kill, or remove all threats in advance. Even if it is possible in the Internet to have an attack site brought down, it is simple enough to duplicate content, is simple for the attackers to create rally points, regroup, and then attack again. In fact, bringing a site down oftentimes results in redoubled enemy efforts.

Some of the only effective tools one can use to use “softkill countermeasures” — make sure there is enough chaff and there are enough enough flares in the search results so that when someone tries to attack your brand, their attack ends up getting lost on page 5+ of the returns while still allowing friendlies, “passengers,” and clients to easily and safely find their way to you.

How about them apples?

Me too.

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

Me too.

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

Me too.

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

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

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

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

Here’s the lineup for the week.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two articles caught my eye earlier this week.

One was an AdAge article entitled “So Much for Engagement; Buys Are Still Based on Eyes”. It talked about a recent study by Advertiser Perceptions. Marketers and media buyers are looking to spend more and more dollars online. That’s because their first and foremost metric is reach – and that’s were people are going today. Online. But they see it more as a results oriented medium and are not doing it for engagement purposes as they don’t perceive that the online is good for engagement. This study was based on a survey of 2047 marketers and their media buyers.

The second one was a press release of a report put out by the Chief Marketing Officer (CMO) Council. It described how measurable ROI is becoming an increasingly important factor for marketers as they transform dollars online. Accountabilty is of prime importance as marketers look to measure the value of the programs they’ve created and the investments they’ve made. A result of this trend in 2007 was the relative high turnover of the agencies used – ad, web design, and PR – to carry out these programs. The reasons for the severing of relationships was often tied into “lack of innovation” and “no value-added thinking”. Hmm…

ROI is often hard to prove in social media marketing. While most forms of marketing involve some sort of relationship building, social media marketing is almost completely based upon it. It’s effectiveness is not measured in short term or fixed period metrics – the heart of ROI, but long-term difficult-to-measure attributes related to brand affinity and customer lifetime value. It’s all qualitative analysis and not quantitative analysis.

If it’s true that companies are going to be spending more and more online with a greater focus on sustaining measurable ROI, then it doesn’t bode well for social media types if we have a recession that many are predicting.

Francois Gossieaux, in Emergence Marketing, makes an excellent point in refuting the heavy emphasis on ROI in marketing, period.

“by measuring ROI on discreet processes (i.e., a specific lead generation campaign), which most companies who measure ROI do, companies are reducing marketing to a collection of simple linear processes, when in reality it is a complex multi-variable and non-linear system. So by oversimplifying marketing to make it measurable, many companies will actually break marketing more so than it already is.”

Marketers have often complained – justifiably so in my opinion – of how marketing is often devalued within their organization. It can be viewed as a cost as opposed to an investment. The push for ROI to justify spend means that they could choose strategies and tactics that 1) they are most familiar with and 2) are the most measurable.

An amazing paragraph from the AdAge article reads:

So which medium is the most engaging? Survey respondents said it’s print — yet ranked print lowest for delivering results. Online was ranked lowest for engagement but highest for results, while TV was ranked in the middle for both results and engagement.

Let’s check this out…marketers are increasing their online spend because that’s where the people are. Online is the most interactive medium and by extension of that should be the best for engagement but marketers (and probably ad agencies) see it as the worst. Marketers now see it as being the best for results (the “R” in ROI) along with perhaps reach. This would seemingly say that they don’t yet value the various aspects of social media marketing.

And not only that, but print, the medium that’s both losing its share of ad spend and is considered to be the worst for results is considered to be the best for engagement by these very same marketers. WTF?

It’s no secret that many traditional marketers and media buyers see the online arena through their traditionalist eyes. We see evidence of that all the time. Facebook’s Beacon and Social Ads are recent examples of that. Fake attempts to tie into word of mouth. Facebook is hot. Lots of eyeballs lets do it. We’ll be hip and it’s “pushing the envelope”. It’s likely traditional types are trying to please whomever they answer to.

Mack Collier pointed out how in a conversation we had from his post “Companies Remain in the Shadow of the Blogosphere”:

“but I think many companies and their PR firms still see most blogs as having an audience of about 4 people, all family members of the author. I think that’s why you are seeing them treat the highly-trafficked blogs, the Tech Crunchs, as media sources. But for 99% of blogs, they don’t care and don’t understand why they should.”

He’s right. And that’s unfortunate. But the odd thing is that the key decision makers – marketing executives – are likely in their eternal search for ROI are hurting their efforsts for long term success by view the online arena as ineffective for engagement. And then by either choosing traditional minded ad agencies (and then complaining that they lack innovation) or by stifling the creativity of less traditional and more innovative agencies (by an unnecessary focus on immediate ROI) they are shooting themselves in BOTH feet.

BtoB Online reports that 60.1% of B to B marketers will increase their marketing budgets next year. While that’s more than half, but still shows caution. It’s probable that many are unsure about the direction of the economy.

The good news is that 79.1 percent will be increasing their online budgets for 2008. Of all the methods of marketing, that stand as the highest. What we’re going to be witnessing is companies taking money out of traditional and going online. And we may see a lot of this happening.

Given now that we’re seeing consumer generated goods making their way successfully on the internet through the use of ad units, I’m going to guess that B to B will go that route as well. And a very healthy dose of search. Both should be essential.

I’m wondering though…will we see much devoted to social media. Educational/promo pieces on YouTube, increased blogger engagement, the use of podcasts for current customers. I’m sure this is being done, but more likely in the tech sector. I’m just wondering what other industry cultures will move in that direction.

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.

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.

In light of our latest post on Steve Blinn’s powerful calling out of the many lies his fellow PRs folks commit, we point out one in particular: “We Know Web 2.0″. So true.

Then, Over at Logic + Emotion, David Armano challenges us again by declaring “Content is the next killer app”. He lays in on the line by pointing to a Globe and Mail article in which a Martha Stewart Living media president Wanda Harris Millard laments that their newly designed site is not working out. And it is strictly because of the design. “Beauty’ and a certain ‘look’ were held in higher regard than utility, and the result was a site that may have looked wonderful, but didn’t give its visitors what they wanted.

“We put beauty before utility.” She said the front page, with its video player and jazzy graphics, included only about five links to actual content, “so the things people were looking for couldn’t be found.”

The mistake, she said, was in failing to understand that “when the reader or viewer or listener becomes the user, what she’s looking for is much different — at least initially.”

Publisher must realize that their websites, while they are most definitely a reflection of them and their brand and their image, aren’t meant for them. They’re meant for us. The reader, the user, the visitor.

We want a particular type of content. We may love a certain look, but we don’t want it to get in the way. Hmmm…come to think of it, content has always been the killer app.

So next time your agency says they ‘know Web 2.0″, ask them how they design around content and not the other way around.

It is not good enough to just pitch bloggers. It is also important to target your audience (and also target your message), be willing to offer a gift (it doesn’t have to be swag, it can be anything: arcane knowledge, help, support, or access), and to actually be an active social media participant (people will check up on your story, that’s for certain).

“The team’s thinking was that any blogger they pitched would go searching for more information on the contest. ” Via Search Engine Guide

I do a pretty good job at all of these things and even I find myself up the flag pole periodically, too.

Mediaweek reported last week that MSN is going to limit it’s veiwers pre-roll exposure to what it had currently been. I don’t think it goes far enough but it sure is a step in the right direction.

Until now, their system had been set up to feed you an ad that depended on the amount of seperate videos you had watched. That often resulted in seeing a :30 repurposed TV ad for a :18 news story. The new method will deliver those intrusive ads after a viewer has viewed three minutes of video.

The time proportion of new-to-commerical will surely be better. But what it is missing is context. At times, one most defiinitley doesn’t want their user experience to be conintually interrupted by and ad for some sort of headache pill or car. They’re clicking on to read about a natural disaster, a plane crash, or someting else vital.

MSN and others are going to have to come up with models that are more contextual, less intrusive, and frankly, less frequent. User experience online is different. And getting a new commercial every three minutes is still mind numbing.