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

As a person who’s been online a long time and is pretty savvy about tech and virus issues, I watch my inbox for emails with attachments that I don’t recognize; sites that automatically re-direct me elsewhere and have my anti-virus software updated daily and do regular scans. I back up email and files to two external drives. I thought I was pretty smart and thankfully I take lots of notes when working with my tech guy and/or Microsoft technical support. (I have drawers full of “spent” steno pads with notes)

August 2009 was a busy time for me. While on a “tear” of creativity writing emails and posts, a generic screen popped up on my computer and said I had just downloaded a virus. I didn’t examine the “notification window” closely to realize it wasn’t the one associated with my own anti-virus software. The notification screen said I should do an immediate scan –which I did– but it was “their” scan and not my anti-virus program doing the scan. According to that “scan”, I had over 40 viruses, worms and trojan horses! I panicked despite that I had performed an anti-virus scan the week before and came out clean.

The scan window suggested I upgrade to Protective Anti-Virus software for $50 for one year or a three year upgrade for $79.00 to remove all these nasty critters. Whipping out the plastic, I decided to \purchase only a one-year upgrade, thinking that I was being smart in handling it so quickly . I downloaded the upgrade and upon rebooting the computer, I discovered that I had made a colossal error in judgement.

The computer came to desk-top but none of my Microsoft programs worked. Attempting to open any Microsoft program: Outlook, Internet Explorer, or MS Office and the window/program immediately shut down. I checked the Protective Anti-Virus software site (otherwise known as PAV) for tech support and sent them 4 emails and 4 voicemails over two days. I did get a voice-mail from someone from PAV but that message was to ask me to call back. I did– but heard nothing further.

My tech guy arrived to check out the computer and discovered that I had PAV. Upon googling “PAV”, we found several sites that indicated PAV was malware– a program bent on crippling a computer. One site alone had over 40,000 posts on how their computers were disabled by PAV and how to fix it. The PAV people had since improved their malware to point of requiring a complete wipe of the computer to clear out PAV. Not only had I downloaded something that had taken me off-line, but I paid them to do it with my credit card so I was the victim of credit card fraud. I called my bank to dispute the charge to PAV and also filed a fraud report. Three weeks — and over one thousand dollars in tech support and additional hardware– later, my computer was fully functional but I had lost various document, photo and audio-visual files in the restoration. Cyber-crime had struck with a vengence!

Fast-forward 4 weeks: I happened to be on Peter Shankman’s HARO site (Help a Reporter Out) and saw a post asking for cyber-crime victims. I sent in my very brief email and the email exchanges began. About twenty email exchanges later, I was on the phone with PR people who wanted to hear about my malware experience in exhaustive detail — a conversation full of questions.

Eventually I found out that their client– McAfee,– wanted to use me in a video about cyber-crime and how sophisticated it has become and how easily it is to be taken in by these scams or “scareware”

What’s the impact of this Fake Anti-Virus or Scareware?
- “Scareware,” or fake anti-virus software, could cause the most monetary damages to consumers and their computers in 2010.

- “One company, known as ‘Integrated Marketing’ made $180 million through these scams, and more than two million consumers contacted the company regarding its software.”

- According to McAfee, there has been a 400% increase in reported incidents in the last 12 months. It’s been the number one call-driver to McAfee’s Virus Removal Service team for the past six months, with more than 19,000 calls logged in January 2010 alone.

-One in five online consumers was a victim of cybercrime in the past two years. (Consumer Reports, 2009)

-Almost a half-million households had to replace PCs due to malware in the past six months (source: Consumer Reports, June 2009.)

I bet you are thinking this can’t and won’t happen to you (particularly if you are on a MAC). That’s a bet I wouldn’t want you to make because you would lose. During the time since this post went live in mid-March, 2010, I have heard from more than 25 personal friends and associates who had this happen to them. I told them all to be smart, back up everything possible to an external drive (I now have 4 of them) and then wipe the infected drive. One of my friends spent easily 2-3 weeks with her tech guy trying to clean up her Mac laptop before having to wipe it clean. The numbers of general public who have contacted me about this (and get the same advice) have surpassed a thousand partly because this particular problem/issue was featured on KCBS LA twice (http://bit.ly/aMj0Gz -see the right sidebar for the video!) and CBS4.com, McAfee’s website & blog, blogcritics.org and in print– the most recent is August 2010′s Readers Digest.

What’s the underlying reason these scams and scareware tactics are being spread across the web with such intensity? The almighty dollar. The sharks are from globally determined to hit every computer possible. The best defense is to be aware of the potential and have great anti-virus software as well as a high panic threshold (unlike my first response) because the cyber-criminals will keep coming at you. They hit me again within a week of my first blog going live on my blog; the difference being that I recognized it for what it was and dealt with it appropriately. They haven’t stopped since then and I have been hit about 4 more times since then. These cirminals are persistant and will change up their scareware presentation in a variety of ways (e.g., Facebook or Gmail password login scams).

There is more information on scareware within my original post along with the other posts that I have hyperlinked.

Regarding the marketing aspect of this and how McAfee’s implementation, they found an issue that’s genuinely costing consumers millions of dollars every year (more if you count the time and emotional stress involved). McAfee researched the information on the costs, time and where the sources of the cybercrime initiative and provided a logical solution and upgraded their software to prevent this from happening to their customers. Plus they got someone credible who actually experienced it. I have to give them props for spreading this news across the web and they found other spins off this scareware and keep people informed on their CTA blog as well as facebook page and twitter. They entered the market ahead of the other anti-virus software with a big splash on this. (3 hours of video-taping in my home plus months of editing is pretty costly.) While other software brands have the same prevention capacity available, they aren’t spreading the gospel of awareness and prevention like McAfee is. That’s making a huge statement about McAfee’s consumer outreach.

Disclosure: I was not paid for my time, participation or video appearance by any party. For me, it is matter of personal security that I want everyone to have. Learn from the mistakes I made so you don’t have to learn the way I did: the hard, expensive, way..

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

When I sell Abraham Harrison‘s blogger outreach and blogger PR services I tend to focus on the initial promotional and profile benefits associated with having hundreds of highly targeted organic earned media blog posts show up almost overnight on behalf of our clients.  If you would like to know what this sort of campaign looks like, check out our case studies.

That’s not it, there’s more. As I have mentioned before, unlike SEM, these blog posts, reviews, and mentions are permenant and not ephemeral.

Finally, there is the issue of the powerful and amazing SEO benefits associated with having over 100 bloggers choose to write about your brand, product, campaign, or service.

Unlike pay-for-play services like Review Me, PayPerPost, or IZEA, the blog posts written by the bloggers we reach out to are not pay per post, they are earned media.  When my team and I reach out to our A-Z list bloggers along dozens of verticals targets, it is up to each blogger to choose to accept our message and decide that what we’re offering is worthwhile to post or Twitter.

There is real power associated with this sort of thing. Like any journalistic or consumer-generated promotional pitching, results are not guaranteed; however, we have done this for over two yearsd and our penetration, success, and results have improved over time.

If you want to see the sort of posts that are associated with this kind of blogger PR pitch outreach, here are some examples:

• Thank You All Who Supported International Medical Corps!
• Thank You Operation Survivor Bloggers
• Thank You International Medical Corps Bloggers
• Thank You Again Survivor Corps Bloggers
• Thank You Fresh Air Fund Bloggers
• Book Promotion with Blogger PR 

I am always to allow these things to be as transparent as possible.  What’s more, linking back to all of the fine blog posts that bloggers have shoehorned into their busy days is sort of a link love thank you.

And, to be honest, Google thinks were the bees knees because the content that our messaging drives real content. In all cases, we’re at the mercy of the blogger — if we’re not smart, generous, engaging, charming, positive, responsive, and even supportive, we’ll get tarred and feathered, and so will out client.

We’re better than that.

With each blogger outreach that results in a hundred or more organic earned media, highly-textual, brand-centric, keyword-dense and diverse, and often times almost completely based on the Social Media News Releases (SMNRs) we create for the client, the level of powerful Google, Live.com, Technorati, Ask.com, and Yahoo! love is not only formidable, but, over time, and much sooner than you think, both our social media new releases as well as our blogged content can challenge our clients for top-spot, which is OK because we’re not their competitor.

Here are some examples of client SMNRs we especially like, feel free to check them out:

• http://anamigo.smnr.us
• http://freshair.smnr.us/
• http://banclusterbombs.smnr.us/
• http://freshairfundcounselors.smnr.us/
• http://survivorcorps.smnr.us/

• http://iwillnotbebroken.smnr.us/

• http://internationalmedicalcorps.smnr.us/

I have almost ten-years of SEO experience and have always done things the right way, and Social Media and Blogger PR is the right way. None of us coerce any of our bloggers into blogging, we’re just able to figure out how to appeal, how to give, how to engage, how to message, and how to ask for what we want from our long tail list of upwards of 500 A-list blogger and 30,000 B-Z list bloggers.

Anyway, if you’re interested in learning more or getting on a call with my Director, Dan, my CEO, Mark, and/or me, pop me an email and we’ll sort it out.

I am not telling you anything you don’t already know since you’re reading this. Since you’re reading this, you’re either my friend or your follow one of my blogs — so I have probably chewed your ear off about the benefits of both social media marketing as well as social media public relations.  Here’s another example that this trend is growing and becoming mainstream. Lauren Cook hooked me up with this article from the Houston Business Journal, “Online strategies, responsibility are becoming marketing ‘musts’”

The latest trends in getting company names into the public eye are catching on quickly, and marketing professionals say those who don’t adapt may be left behind. The following are examples of marketing that experts say companies can no longer afford to ignore:

Using ‘social media’

Blogs, forums, chat rooms, Flickr, Twitter, Youtube.com, Facebook.com and MySpace.com are emerging as powerful marketing tools.

“People who are experts on or passionate about a particular topic or interest may start their own Web site, generate a blog or post videos online,” says Cindy Marion, president of Marion, Montgomery Inc. “Over time, bloggers and social media contributors continue posting more subjects, articles, videos or sound clips related to their specific interests. This is good for conversation and for search engine optimization.”

According to a recently released Cone Business Survey, 93 percent of Americans believe companies should have a presence on social media sites, and 85 percent believe these companies should use these services to interact with consumers.

“The people have spoken but the wheel hasn’t been reinvented,” Marion says. “Because although the medium may be new, proven marketing strategies remain. Consistent messaging and frequent communications are key to creating perception, influence and persuasion.

“When people want to know about something, they typically ask their friends,” she says. “Now they often search for it online. If a company has a Web site, that’s a good start to gain a base knowledge of the product, but if an unvested third party touts that company’s products and services, then the company’s reputation gets more credit. If an online friend or trusted source touts it, all the better.”

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.

Let’s take a look at the debate between Brian and Loic, point by point.

Point #1

Brian Solis: Understand You’re Not the Only Story in Town
Loic: Who cares about stories, you can get traction and users if you have a good product

Where do I start? First of all, Brian’s spot on in that many top executives in startups overvalue what the product or the service or whatever it is that they’re introducing. They don’t understand that the battleground for attention from key influencers and potential customers is filled with other players battling for attention as well. Sometimes it’s necessary to get someone to help craft a pathway through that battlefield, from someone one that understands which weapons and shields are needed. How to break through that clutter. Because on that very same battlefield are others looking for sweet victory as well. And that’s just the battle to get noticed.

Sometimes that’s having someone who can help craft and deliver a great story.

And, yes, sometimes, one of the best weapons is having established a blog and with that, a burgeoning community. Loic has done that and kudos to him for that. He is a great example of what he’s writing about.

Some of those competitors on the battlefield may not be direct competitors in business. No matter. They are still competing for mindshare of the audience a startup wants to reach.

CEOs need to understand this. They’ve worked their tails off for a significant period of time to produce something. That’s quite an accomplishment in itself. But many automatically think that whatever they’ve produce “sells itself” that it’s a “no-brainer” causing people to automatically understand why they should buy it. This is called hubris.

Hubris kills. For example, a trivia question. Guess who said this last fall:

“I’m in it for the long run. It’s not a very long run. It will be over by February 5.”*

History is filled with failed startups let by overconfident individuals that failed to realize they need some sort of marketing plan to get the word out, to position the product, to clarify key features and benefits. They decided to start companies and then implemented marketing as an afterthought. In other words, their companies have no stories.

While the atmosphere is much better today, I’ve seen decision makers that refuse to get this. It’s as if they seemingly believe that press rooms of major business publications had fax rooms where eager young interns hang out excitedly to retrieve their press releases and run to the editors with all of your important info. If you lack a story – and a decent product – it’s much more difficult to gain traction.

No, Loic, good stories are often needed. Stories can explain complex products. Stories can differentiate between competitors. Stories can offer insight that go beyond a series of sentences on a press release. Just as blog posts can. Blogging and trying to develop a community can work – but not really in time to help that start up. Unless they’re already a know quality like you. It also helps when you have a Web 2.0 type service that connects people such as Seesmic.

A second major point regarding Loic’s comments is that not all good products can get traction. Just as not every great guitarist gets that major record deal, just as not every great aspiring actress gets the big break, not every great product gets noticed. There are a bunch of factors that influence success. As Jim Kurkral commented on Loic’s post, “Even people with great products can still fail getting coverage.” Coverage in industry press, coverage in mainstream press, coverage in blogs. Nor will all creators of great bloggers be able to form online communities.

For that matter, not every product that meet with success is of top quality. Sometimes it’s luck. Previous reputation. Timing. Or a great story.

*Trivia answer: Hillary Clinton, (self)presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party in the U.S. Presidential race, describing how quickly she’ll win the nomination.

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.

Writing in AdAge, Steve Rubel points out some telling statistics regarding the coming relationship between online media properties, ad agencies, and marketers. And it doesn’t look all that good for ad agencies.

What’s happening is that media properties, realizing that their revenue models for their businesses will likely be tied into advertising dollars as opposed to subscriptions have been deciding to develop creative and strategic digital capabilites to help serve their likely base of advertising customers.

Steve got this information from Christopher Vollmer of Booz Allen Hamilton, who made a presentation at IAB’s annual meeting in Phoenix last week. I went to Booz Allen’s site and couldn’t find the study, but Steve lays out some interesting statistics.

More marketers believe they’ll be doing more business with online media properties from a creative standpoint (52%) than they will with agencies (27%). That’s almost 2 to 1! This means that marketers either don’t feel as if they’re being well served by their agencies or that agencies as we know them today will just not be needed as much tomorrow. Or perhaps both of these will ring true. And media properties seem to be thinking the same thing. A full 53% of them expect to be working more with their advertisers by 2010.

If you still have doubts, the study showed that 91% of media companies have some sort of “agency-like” service, including idea creation (88%) and creative development (79%). I know this to be true – because I’ve used them.

My thought is that the end client – the marketers – are often laggards, so to speak, just like many agencies. But when it comes time to choose creative thought, they will just as likely turn to the media property that knows their audience and knows what works, than they will their ad agency that has, for whatever reason, resisted becoming digitally savvy.

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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s a whole new ball game.

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.

Abraham Harrison executive, Saul Wainwright, brought an amazing radio news article to my attention, The Truth of False, which addresses what I have known forever: the truth is always what people remember and people generally associate the words used when messaging — color and tone — with the final perception, be it positive or negative. (Thanks Saul)

If someone says, “Chris Abraham doesn’t suck,” you’ll come away with, “Chris Abraham sucks.” Better to say, in response to “Chris Abraham sucks,” “Chris Abraham is a generous and loving child of God.” Better, right? Rule 1: Never Adopt Your Enemy’s Language!

People assume that their memories serve them with truth. When doing online messaging or counter-messaging, I go back to quote the maestro, Frank Luntz, “It’s not what you say it’s what people hear,” where I add, “It’s not what you say it’s what people remember,” finally adding, “It’s not true unless people remember it as true and it isn’t false unless people remember it as false.”

Here’s a book recommendation: Words That Work: It’s Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear by Frank Luntz

Transcript of The Truth of False

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

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

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

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

BOB GARFIELD: Hmm — well, I guess there’s some hope in that. By what mechanism is this taking place?

SHANKAR VEDANTAM: The mind relies on a number of rules of thumb, and one of the rules of thumb that it uses is that things that are more easily recalled are true even if the context in which they originally heard the statement was that the statement is false.

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

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

BROOKE GLADSTONE: I want to ask you, then, about truth-squadding, since we’re in the midst of political races. Here’s the scenario: politician A makes horrendous charges against politician B, essentially lying about the opposition. A vigilant reporter notices this and does a truth-squadding article in the newspaper that says, no, this campaign ad is simply not true for the following reason. And politician B, of course, immediately starts attacking politician A for misrepresenting his or her record. Who wins?

SHANKAR VEDANTAM: I think invariably it’s going to be politician A. When you have people who are systematically trying to manipulate you, spread propaganda, for instance, and they repeat the same information over and over again, the fact that we are not very good at remembering where we heard a particular piece of information, we tend to believe that we have heard the information from multiple independent sources and therefore it must be true, rather than from the same untrustworthy source over and over again.

BOB GARFIELD: Now, the studies you’re talking about suggest that these effects take place irrespective of the bias of the listener. But there’s another study that suggests that if you are, in fact, predisposed to have a certain world view that misinformation sticks still more. Can you describe it?

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

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

BOB GARFIELD: And this would explain, for example, why, throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds, more than half of the population seems to believe that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were the work of the U.S. government or Israel.

SHANKAR VEDANTAM: I think that’s right. What’s especially disturbing is that the number of people who believe that is actually growing over time. In the study I mentioned, 59 percent of Turks and Egyptians, 65 percent of Indonesians, 53 percent of Jordanians, even 56 percent of British Muslims do not believe that Arabs were behind the 9/11 attacks.

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

BOB GARFIELD: So the truth will out, except when it doesn’t.

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

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

BOB GARFIELD: Ah — so, in other words, to replace one lie with another.

[LAUGHTER]

Shankar, thank you so much.

SHANKAR VEDANTAM: Thanks so much, Bob.

BOB GARFIELD: Shankar Vedantam is a reporter and columnist at The Washington Post.

More Info on Words That Work: It’s Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear by Frank Luntz

From Publishers Weekly
After repeating his mantra—”it’s not what you say, it’s what people hear”—so often in this book, you’d think that Republican pollster Luntz would have taken his own advice to heart. Yet in spite of an opening anecdote that superficially attempts a balanced tone, the book as a whole truly reads more like a manual for right-wing positioning. Even in the sections where he is less partisan, Luntz’s advice is not particularly insightful. For instance, his first chapter, on “Ten Rules of Effective Language,” starts by instructing readers to use small words and short sentences in their communications. The least effective section in the book is the chapter on “Personal Language for Personal Scenarios,” where Luntz advocates manipulative strategies for getting out of traffic tickets, boarding airplanes at the last minute and apologizing to one’s wife with the “miracle elixir” of flowers. The most readable and redeeming feature is the two case studies, where Luntz demonstrates his skill as a communicator by identifying real-world communications successes and failures. Unfortunately, by the time nonpartisan readers reach these chapters, they will have already lost patience. (Jan.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From AudioFile
Luntz, an advisor to many political and corporate leaders, reads an impressive introductory chapter before narrator L.J. Ganser spells out the author’s 10 characteristics of effective communication: simplicity, brevity, credibility, consistency, novelty, sound and texture, inspirational language, vivid pictures, questions, and context and relevance. In the introductory chapter and in a concluding interview, Luntz is a powerful speaker. He knows how to anchor his ideas in the larger cultural context. Expressing his ideas with remarkable skill, he’s a pugnacious thinker who is not afraid to be blunt but is always respectful of how his voice and ideas are heard. In perfect sync with these qualities, L.J. Ganser’s determined enunciation moves the rest of the pithy material along with clarity. T.W. © AudioFile 2007, Portland, Maine– Copyright © AudioFile, Portland, Maine –This text refers to the Audio CD edition.

Wall Street Journal
“Words That Work deserves an attentive read. Mr. Luntz offers a fair amount of good advice to anyone who must communicate publicly–most important, “be the message.” By this he means that if you want to talk the talk and be believed, you must walk the walk–which is to say, you must mean what you say and act on it. Integrity sells.”As the book develops, Mr. Luntz’s “words that work” turn out to be portals for his clients to think hard about what they and their opponents stand for and how to align their positions more closely with what their audiences actually care about. This isn’t hocus-pocus. It’s just the result of hard work, careful thought and empathy–the staples of all intelligent public discourse.”

Senator John Kerry
“Frank Luntz understands the power of words to move public opinion and communicate big ideas.”

Steve Wynn
“If you can’t afford to hire Frank Luntz, you have to read Words that Work.”

Tony Robbins
“a MUST read!”

The (London) Sunday Telegraph
“The pollster has a long track record of identifying the phrases that make or break political and corporate campaigns . . .”

Chris Matthews
“Dr. Luntz, you are a freaking genius. The book is called Words That Work and you’re always right.”

Washington Post.com
“One of the nation’s leading pollsters and political language specialists.”

Washington Post.com
“One of the nation’s leading pollsters and political language specialists.”

Financial Times
“Few political consultants can boast as many strings to their bow at such a young age as Frank Luntz. When he was barely in his thirties, the Republican wordsmith played a critical role in devising the Contract With America, which helped Newt Gingrich’s Republican party win control of both houses of Congress for the first time in more than a generation….”It is a fair bet that Luntz will play an influential role in the 2008 election, possibly in service of his old friend the former mayor of New York.

“Words That Work is Luntz’s attempt to distil what he insists is his intrinsically honourable profession between two covers. To a large extent it works. Even where Luntz is protesting a bit too loudly – that negative attacks on political opponents rarely work, for example, and that, by implication, Luntz has never been involved in such skulduggery – he is always readable.

“Part lexicographic memoir, part self-help book, Words That Work shines when the accent is on the former. It is hard to think of any other political consultant in America who has coined as many effective slogans as Luntz. Some, such as his branding of the estate, or inheritance, tax as the “death tax”, have remoulded conventional wisdom with devastating effect on their principally Democratic defenders.

“Others have crept into common usage less dramatically but just as effectively. Take “exploring for energy” instead of “drilling for oil”, “tax relief” in place of “tax cuts”, or “not giving” emergency hospital care to “illegal aliens” instead of “denying” it to “undocumented workers”. Words, or rather the slicing and dicing of them to fashion our subliminal responses, do work, particularly when tried and tested in Luntz’s two-hour “dial sessions”, where volunteers convey their responses by turning a dial up or down in reaction to what they are seeing and hearing.

“Luntz has produced a fine book that teaches us a great deal about politics in today’s America and about the minutely analysed mindset of the electorate. That Luntz’s words are effective there can be little doubt.”

Financial Times
“Few political consultants can boast as many strings to their bow at such a young age as Frank Luntz. When he was barely in his thirties, the Republican wordsmith played a critical role in devising the Contract With America, which helped Newt Gingrich’s Republican party win control of both houses of Congress for the first time in more than a generation….

“It is a fair bet that Luntz will play an influential role in the 2008 election, possibly in service of his old friend the former mayor of New York.

“Words That Work is Luntz’s attempt to distil what he insists is his intrinsically honourable profession between two covers. To a large extent it works. Even where Luntz is protesting a bit too loudly – that negative attacks on political opponents rarely work, for example, and that, by implication, Luntz has never been involved in such skulduggery – he is always readable.

“Part lexicographic memoir, part self-help book, Words That Work shines when the accent is on the former. It is hard to think of any other political consultant in America who has coined as many effective slogans as Luntz. Some, such as his branding of the estate, or inheritance, tax as the “death tax”, have remoulded conventional wisdom with devastating effect on their principally Democratic defenders.

“Others have crept into common usage less dramatically but just as effectively. Take “exploring for energy” instead of “drilling for oil”, “tax relief” in place of “tax cuts”, or “not giving” emergency hospital care to “illegal aliens” instead of “denying” it to “undocumented workers”. Words, or rather the slicing and dicing of them to fashion our subliminal responses, do work, particularly when tried and tested in Luntz’s two-hour “dial sessions”, where volunteers convey their responses by turning a dial up or down in reaction to what they are seeing and hearing.

“Luntz has produced a fine book that teaches us a great deal about politics in today’s America and about the minutely analysed mindset of the electorate. That Luntz’s words are effective there can be little doubt.”

Book Description
The nation’s premier communications expert shares his wisdom on how the words we choose can change the course of business, of politics, and of life in this country

In Words That Work, Luntz offers a behind-the-scenes look at how the tactical use of words and phrases affects what we buy, who we vote for, and even what we believe in. With chapters like “The Ten Rules of Successful Communication” and “The 21 Words and Phrases for the 21st Century,” he examines how choosing the right words is essential.

Nobody is in a better position to explain than Frank Luntz: He has used his knowledge of words to help more than two dozen Fortune 500 companies grow. He’ll tell us why Rupert Murdoch’s six-billion-dollar decision to buy DirectTV was smart because satellite was more cutting edge than “digital cable,” and why pharmaceutical companies transitioned their message from “treatment” to “prevention” and “wellness.”

If you ever wanted to learn how to talk your way out of a traffic ticket or talk your way into a raise, this book’s for you.

About the Author
Dr. Frank Luntz is one of the most respected communication professionals in America. With his firm, Luntz Maslansky Strategic Research, he has conducted more than 1,500 surveys and focus groups for corporate, public affairs, and political clients in twenty countries. Luntz lives in McLean, Virginia.

The awful truth, proved again and again, is that “junk mail” and other direct mail and email campaigns still generate the best return on investment (ROI) no matter how much people complain, cry foul, or piss and moan.

“Direct mail and email generated the best return on investment among media channels in 2006, according to respondents.” Via MarketingVOX

Admit it: you respond to direct mail, don’t you?

There is a legitimate difference between online marketing and Spam. Some people say the difference is Relevancy. Okay, this is close; but there needs to be another element involved: Value. Mmm – organically grown and very delicious Value.

I liken the difference between a legitimate online marketing campaign and Spam to graffiti art and plain graffiti. One is art, thus providing worth to all who choose to accept and appreciate it; and the other is simply there and of no value whatsoever – unless you, in fact, rejoice in knowing that KLM is forever a Ruff Ryder and having that displayed prominently in silver Krylon across your Brooklyn apartment door.

Anyway – Back on track:

An online marketer must bring something to the table – add some real value to that very real community that they are stepping into. They have to care about what the community is trying to say and also be sincere when sharing information with this community.

Thoughts?

In Abraham Harrison LLC lingo, we would call the “tracking online chatter” executing an Online Conversation Audit and then maintaining ongoing online intelligence-gathering and analysis.

An Online Conversation Audit is a thorough analysis of a client’s brand perception and reputation online, with particular focus on the client’s conversation in question (e.g. what are they saying about me, what are they saying about my product, what are they saying about my service) in all the relevant blogs, forums, websites, etc. and gives the clients and us a baseline understanding of where online conversation stands at the moment — where the conversation is happening, its intensity (or non-existence), its tone (positive, negative, neutral), its momentum, who is involved in these conversations, who the leaders in the community are, and what the language and “culture” each community having these conversations is.

This is important because it lays out where the conversations are happening, what the conversation are about, and offers a less-focused map of general, topical, conversation that can then be made more precise based on the keywords and topics that are most interesting and useful to you.

After this initial analysis is made, and an understanding of the situation is established, decisions can be made as to what parts of the conversation you wish to focus and invest the resources to track and analyze on an ongoing basis. This would be the ongoing intelligence-gathering and analysis.

Boiled down, this is all called Online Brand Intelligence, which can go hand-in-hand with operational campaigns such as blogger outreach and blogger engagement in the form of online brand promotion and protection, including crisis management.

While exploring the blog search engines for relevant company-related content, take note of particularly friendly blogs and bloggers. Also take note of any blog and bloggers who are actively embedding your company code into their blogs.

If a blogger consistently uses your company, comments on blog posts, or has ever given a positive or neutral review of your company, consider asking the blogger to be part of a select list of folks who will receive news, updates, upgrades announcements, and other company news with the understanding that when the news is received by the blogger, the blogger can do whatever they want with it.

This is why it is important to make sure the blogger (or message board owner) is committed to liking your company. If you have an agency to conduct blogger prospecting and the online advocacy, be sure they know the form and content of the messages you would like to be conveyed. The prospect may or may not blog about the news. The hope is that the prospect will decide to blog about the news, either positively or neutrally.

Once the email goes out, however, you have no control of what is done. If you have any second thoughts about the prospect being a friendly, don’t do it.

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

A powerful technique for building community on blogs is to find a compelling item about your industry, products, and services, then search for blogs that are already talking about it on Technorati.

It is much easier to message on blogs that are already having friendly conversation.

To spread the word online, tell folks online about you, about your company, your culture, your history, your story, your products, and the services you offer – and do it openly and honestly and place your own name, your own email, and either the URL of your web site or the URL of the blog itself.

Transparency is key.

Here’s great blog outreach strategy from the A-list pro, John Hlinko, on his site, StemPAC:

Blogs: Get the word out.  If you have a blog, write about us, and put a StemPAC blog ad on your site (you can steal these ads right now from our blog page).

3) Spread the word online:  People are already talking about this issue — tell them about StemPAC.com.  Here’s how:

• Go to Technorati.com, a blog search engine.
• Type in the phrase “Stem cell”
• Go to the blogs that are talking about this issue
• Where appropriate, leave a short note about StemPAC.com (not sure what to say?  use the text from our tell a friend page )
• Come back tomorrow (or as often as you can) and do the same thing

Please be considerate, and make sure to leave this note only where people might be interested (i.e., “inform” – don’t “spam”)

Brilliant strategy. The most important line is the last, of course, “Please be considerate, and make sure to leave this note only where people might be interested (i.e., “inform” – don’t “spam”)”

That is great advice with regards any online PR, marketing, or advertising, actually.

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

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

You can’t control online conversation unless you participate. To quote Sernovitz, “you’ll never be able to control the blogosphere conversation. Don’t even try. You’ll never be able to manage your blog coverage like you manage the press. Don’t even try. But what you can do is participate, earn respect, and tell your story. Jump in, join the conversation, and be a part of it.” The only way to get indexed by Google or to show up on Technorati, Ask.com, Feedster, and BlogPulse is to be an online opinion leader who has a site that has made it out of Technorati, Ask.com, Feedster, BlogPulse, Yahoo!, MSN, and Google’s sandbox, and has a SEO and a Blog Search Engine strategy.

You have to initiate membership, become part of the conversation, build street cred, have an SEO and blog strategy, and become a respected online opinion leader before something goes awry.

It is essential that you begin establishing yourself as soon as you begin building your company. Visibility and influence online takes time, so it’s best to start building early, so that when your product or service is ready for launch, you won’t have to wait another six months to become visible.