Are you ready to give up your shoes for the day– or even 30 minutes?This one small step for you can make big strides for others.

Wherever you are on April 5th, TOMS Shoes is asking you to join the One Day Without Shoes movement by doing at least one thing on this day without wearing your shoes. Last year over 250,000 people went without shoes and over 1,600 events took place around the globe to raise awareness of the impact a pair of shoes can have on a child’s life. Previous celebrity participants include Demi Moore, Jordin Sparks, The Jonas Brothers, The Olsen Twins and more. So, join the movement and ditch your kicks to help spread the word. It doesn’t matter where you are or what you are doing, gather your friends and family and make a difference

· ONE DAY WITHOUT SHOES – Wherever you are on April 5th, TOMS is asking you to join the One Day Without Shoes movement by doing whatever you love to do without wearing shoes.

Blake Mycoskie, Talks about Tom’s Shoes “Day Without Shoes” Initiative & More! from stevie wilson on Vimeo.

· Why shoes? – Millions of children live without shoes, aren’t allowed to attend school and are more exposed to injury and disease. Shoes are a critical resource for health, education, and fulfilling their potential.

· One for One – For every pair of TOMS shoes purchased, one pair of new shoes will be given to a child in need.

· How to help the cause and ideas on what you can do sans shoes. – Attend or throw a barefoot cocktail party! TOMS will be hosting parties around the world, but if you can’t make it to any of the locations, why not throw your own?

There will be events in Los Angeles, NYC, and all over the nation! Here is information on the local event in LA:
1. Los Angeles
TOMS Shoes HQ and TOMS Family Event, Santa Monica, CA
• AM walk in Venice or Santa Monica, only for TOMS employees and family.

Please participate today and if you can take a photo of you and/or your colleagues going sans shoes today, please post it to the Toms Shoes Facebook page.

After you spend some time sans shoes, take a break and head to TomsShoes.com and buy a pair. I found the pair I want:

Kenya Wedges

If I were looking for shoes for the Abraham Harrison crew– more specifically Chris Abraham- I would tell him to check out the Olive Suede Botas or the Natural Rope Sole Men’s Cordones

Check out what’s going on at www.onedaywithoutshoes.com

Stevie Wilson, LA-Story.com

A little time away from work makes for both better quality work and for a better quality you, so take that break.

In the world of social media marketing, telecommuting, smart phones, tablet computers, laptops, and so on it’s easy to forget that you need to take a break from it all every once in a while. It’s even easier to remember that you should take a break, but continuously talk yourself out of it. Unplugging once a week from your business, your computer, and maybe even your phone is actually one of the best things you can do for yourself and your business. As Katherine Droguette says in Why Its Important to Unplug From Your Business Sometimes:

Taking a break from the monotonous work is highly necessary. Not only do you relax your mind but, believe it or not, your efficiency is increased when you get back to doing the same work. For example, there’s a term called ‘Writer’s Block’. This refers to a condition when creativity of a writer hits a stumbling block during the course of writing. Stress and over-concentration is a major cause of this condition. As such, most writers prefer to overcome this obstacle by taking a break from writing. Once they get back to their work, they are more refreshed and enthusiastic then before.

Just like any other task, relaxation can also be called a skill. However, your efforts are paid off right away in this case. Mastering this skill of unplugging from your work can result in more productivity, focus and efficiency. Unplugging means shutting down the noise of outside world and allows us to really feel, reflect and feel. The process is synonymous to rejuvenating your body in a spa. Here, the element that experience rejuvenation is our sub-conscious mind. The process of unplugging opens up new opportunities for our sub-conscious mind which are often locked away or repressed.

You can’t be on full blast all of the time, and you will only wear yourself out trying. Ben Yoskovitz says it very clearly in his article Be More Productive By Taking A Break:

All the productivity systems ever invented, all the to-do list sticky notes ever stuck to your desk, and even all the caffeine you’ve ever injected can’t stop you from slowing down and losing focus.

Great productivity isn’t about working all the time.

Great productivity is about being effective when you’re working.

And one key to being effective when you’re working is to make sure you’re not working all the time.

Don’t make the mistake of passing up on a good vacation or a day off. Vacation is a necessity:

Today’s world business is fast-paced and changes at lightening-speed. Your instincts tell you to speed up, to go faster, in order to win the race. But by doing so, you might miss and important warning sign or alternative route that will take you to a much better place. Taking a vacation – even if it is sunning in your backyard for a week – will slow down the sensory input, free up your mind for some creative thoughts, and allow you to reflect on the big picture. Vacations are not just a luxury – vacations are a necessity.

Don’t forget about the little breaks through out the day either, as points 3-6 make it pretty clear that it’s super important to step away from the desk from time to time in Sitbetter’s 7 Reasons Why it is Important to Take Breaks at Work

3. Burnout: People who work continually face complete burnout and what good is a burnt out employee? Physical exhaustion can lead to problems such as chronic headaches, fatigue, inability to concentrate, and trouble sleeping at night. Even if all you take is 15 minutes during an 8 hour work day, you can use that time to refresh yourself and feel more energized the rest of the work day.

4. Productivity: Many studies have revealed that workers who take breaks are dramatically more productive during the day as opposed to those who do not. After a break, your performance levels increase dramatically so that you can tackle tasks again with renewed vigor and finish them accurately. Mistakes are also made more when you do not refresh your mind and body.

5. Heart Risks: After researchers in Finland conducted a study on a group of nearly 800 workers over the span of 28 years, they found that subjects who failed to find time to recover from their workweek were more likely to eventually die of cardiovascular disease. If people are not able to relax periodically, plaques can build up in their arteries which contribute to potential heart attacks and or strokes.

6. Stress: Focusing on a tedious task for too long can easily lead to physical and mental stress. Stress as most know, can lead to serious implications for our health. Common consequences of stress include high blood pressure, high blood sugar, poor fitness, low resistance to viruses, and serious illnesses. If something that is being worked on becomes too stressful, it is best to take a break from it and resume the work once calm and collected.

You need to get out from under your job and your business from time to time. If you don’t then you are only hurting your body, your mind, and your job or business in the long run. Take a moment to refresh, de-stress, move around (your mind needs that movement just as much as your body), and be separate from what you do. Put the phone on silent ant let the calls go to voicemail. Put an autoreply on your email. Take a moment to be. Just breath and be. You’ll be surprised at how much nicer life, your job, your world, and your mood become.

I was looking back at some of the discussion of web 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 in videos from 2006 and 2008. These three are the best that I could find.

In 2006 people were concerned that web 2.0 (the social web) was just a bubble and that it would burst. I think we’re all well past that:

August 10, 2006 – A couple of weeks ago Michael Arrington got together with a number of startup CEOs and executives to video a discussion about Web 2.0. Participating in the discussion were Aaron Cohen (Bolt), Scott Milener and Steven Lurie (Browster), Keith Teare (edgeio), Steven Marder (Eurekster), Joe Kraus (JotSpot), Jeremy Verba (Piczo), Auren Hoffman (Rapleaf), Chris Alden (Rojo), Gautam Godhwani (Simply Hired), Jonathan Abrams (Socializr), David Sifry (Technorati), Matt Sanchez (Video Egg) and Michael Tanne (Wink).

The topics discussed included:

What is Web 2.0?
Are we in a bubble?
What are the business models that will work on the web today?
What is the role of publishers in a user generated world?
How important and how big is the early adopter crowd?

Kevin Kelly had some of the best visuals and looked ahead pretty clearly. Some of it is still to come, but I think he’s got it down pretty pat:

March 27, 2008 – Northern California Grantmakers & The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Present:
Web & Where 2.0+
Feb. 14th, 2008

Session #11
Kevin Kelly
“Web 3.0″

This is one of the best animations/short documentaries describign the evolution of web 1.0 to 3.0 that I have ever seen:

September 28, 2008 — The Dutch ICT think tank EPN (recently merged with ECP.nl to ECP-EPN) has produced this short movie, clearifying the Web 3.0 concept. Which possibilities and implications for society does this next phase of the web induce?

The EPN foundation sets the agenda and approaches web 3.0 from various points of view and draws attention to it’s implications for society.

With our geotagging phones, rfid tags picking up pace, increase in the production and purchase of smart phones, etc – Have we arrived at web 3.0? What do you think?

In 1993, AT&T ran a series of “You Will” commercials giving us an interesting view of the future. So it should be of no surprise that everything they said we would be able to do is now a reality.

I’ve read and reread Michael Arrington’s screed on the state of PR today. No doubt he’s had his full of moronic pitches from overly enthusiastic types pushing this story or that. Many of the pitches will be totally inappropriate for TechCrunch.

If you’re an entrepreneur, he’s got some great basic advice laid out. He also has some dangerous ideas that, once again, show me that some of the people out there who become somewhat successful in a relatively short time have: a tendency to assume that most aspects of marketing are somewhat frivolous and that all one has to do is follow these small steps.

Let’s get right to what he wrote:

So back to practical advice: what do you do if you’re a startup looking for help in getting the word out about your company? First off, don’t hire PR help until the volume of inbound requests by press are simply too much to handle without help. That’s way down the line for most companies.

Until then, take the time to start reading blogs and other publications that cover what you’re doing. Go to an event or two. This should be fun for you, since they’re writing about stuff that you’re spending all your time on. You’ll start to see links to other relevant sites, and before long you’ll fully understand who’s who in the space, get a feel for people’s personalities and passions, etc. Leave a few thoughtful comments. Better yet, start your own blog and link appropriately. And in your leisure time participate in the fascinating conversations occurring on Twitter and FriendFeed.

Suddenly you are no longer just a spectator with an agenda. You are now part of a community. You are a person that gives and takes. Someone who makes the overall network stronger. And I guarantee that after a few weeks of actually participating in the community, you’ll have far better press connections than most of the PR people we deal with daily.

I highlighted that last sentence because it is so stupid. A few weeks? Please. It’s like telling an aspiring actress that all she has to do is go to Hollywood and hang out at a few cool places for a couple of weeks and she’ll have far better connections than most agents.

Other than that, it sounds like great advice. And it is, for the most part. But it’s unrealistic for many. And it consistently spewed out views – seconded by many of the repondees that they’ve got in all under control as far as marketing goes. I’ve seen many a crash and burn from those who take on this mindset. That’s because they don’t think beyond the mindset.

If there’s a shitload of competition out there to break through the noise, then there’s a shitload of competition to break through h noise. Regardless of whom is getting out there amidst the conversations both online and off.

One intrepid PR person, a real fireball by the name of Kel Kelly, came in and told it like it is:

Most of our clients are savvy, Web 2.0-based businesses and they come to us because the “blogosphere only” strategy failed miserably…

…As for having the CEOs do it themselves, I encourage you to get your lips off the crack pipe and step away. Most of my CEOs don’t have time to scratch their ass never mind build and execute a blogosphere strategy or pitch, secure and manage a segment on The Today Show.

Kel is my new best friend. She hit that one out of the park. The problem with Arrington’s point is that applies to so few people. It makes sense, but it often ain’t enough.

I nevertheless think he’s onto something in that entrepreneurs have to be their own evangelists. But I’d say the best thing they could do is enlist the services of a seasoned PR professional that knows the lay of the land…meaning knows the niche industry that the start-up is entering, meaning the key media people and key blogs and bloggers. A sherpa that acts as the initial guide. Press releases aren’t needed. Big pitches aren’t needed. Or at least as much. This type of person should be looked upon at “marketing/PR counsel”, just as an attorney is looked upon as being legal counsel.

Here’s the danger of doing a full fledged DIY strategy:

Time

If you remember, Kel said “Most of my CEOs don’t have time to scratch their ass never mind build and execute a blogosphere strategy or pitch, secure and manage a segment on The Today Show.” Oh, yeah!

So true it’s laughable. Starting and running a business is hard work. It’s a lot of work. It takes boatloads of dedication and time. Getting involved in online conversations and running one’s own blog is hard work. It can be a lot of work, It can take boatloads of dedication and time.

Entrepreneurs are human. I’m going to stereotype, but most of the audience that we’re talking about here are relatively young (under 50). A lot in their thirties. Mostly men. A lot of those have young families. They work 10-15 hour days during the workweek and another 5-8 on a weekend day. When they’re home, they’re going to want to spend time with their spouses and perhaps read their children a bedtime story – that’s if they’re home in time. Spending another 1-3 hours a day reading online mags and blogs is going to be too much. Some can do it. Most can’t.

Better Insight

Timing is everything. A PR person – a good one that is – can see trends coming down the pike. They’ll know editorial calendars. They’ll know when it’s too soon for this or a little late for that. PR people can often get you in the right place at the right time.

They’ll often know which event are worth checking out and which ones may be a waste of time and money.

They’ll know what makes key editors and bloggers take notice. The entrepreneur won’t. Which brings me to my third point…

Hubris

The reality is that, from what I’ve witnessed, the majority of people behind start ups fall overly in love with their products and/or services that they fail to realize that most other people won’t give a shit. They overvalue the relative worth of what they’ve created. They’ll enter conversations all pumped and they won’t necessarily contribute the way they should. They won’t “listen” that much. They don’t understand that most people aren’t going to listen them as well.

They’ll think that they should be featured in the today’s business section and on tomorrow’s Wall Street Journal. A crafty PR person can cut through the hubris and blind enthusiasm and set the record straight.

Just like Kel Kelly did.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interested in your feedback…

Social media can be a practice within itself

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

Social media can be a service

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

Social media is strategy based

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

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

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

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

Social media is tactically based

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

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

Social media is technology based

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

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

Social Media is theory based

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

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

Social media is rule based

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

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

Social media is anti-bureaucratic

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

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

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

Social media can be vertical – part 1

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

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

Social media can be vertical – part 2

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

Social media can be horizontal – part 1

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

Social media can be horizontal – part 2

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

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

Social media is push

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

Social media is pull

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

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

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

Social media can be created from within

This is obvious.

Social media can be created and enhanced by others

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Me too.

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

Me too.

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

Me too.

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

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

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

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

Here’s the lineup for the week.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was going to write a blog post on this but the CNN article cover this pretty well.

In December, al Queda’s media arm Al-Sahab said on their website that al Queda #2  Ayman al-Zawahiri would be taking questions from its, uh, community.  And that he’d get back to us all and answer them.

The article is impressive as are some of the questions – even though they are abhorrent.

I still can’t figure out why we can’t find these guys and eliminate them.

Two articles caught my eye earlier this week.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An amazing paragraph from the AdAge article reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This past Wednesday I attended an excellent forum on Capitol Hill put on by the New Politics Institute. Entitled “Social Networking Tools in Politics”, it featured both excellent speakers and content. The Institute bills itself as a think tank dedicated to helping progressives better understand today’s politics in todays everchaning technology, media, and demographics.

Director Peter Leyden handled the event featuring Facebook Chief Security Officer Chris Kelly, Grassroots.com President and CEO John Hlinko, Cheryl Contee of Flieshman Hillard’s San Francisco office, Change.org’s Ben Rattay, and Simon Rosenberg, head of the New Democratic Network and a founder and officer of NPI.

The crux of the program was part how-to and part what’s-in-store for 2008 and beyond.

Two themes that I took out the session was that, since politics is an original form of social networking, the concepts behind online social networking are a perfect fit for politics. Now, that’s obvious, but they were able to break it down.

Rosenberg stressed that campaigns and causes need to adopt tools and strategies – blogger outreach, mobile, cable TV, online video, and the use of social netorks. This was echoed by Ben Rattay, who has set up Change.org to do just that. There are a series of caused that one can join to mobilize, spread the word, fundraise.

Cheryl Contee also weighed in from the strategy side, pointing out how traditional efforts slumber on while online efforts can be much more nimble.

John Hlinko showed us that he hasn’t lost his sense of humor. He’s a message creator and feels – as I do – that messaging often needs something clever. It can’t be the false sense of outrage that we so often see. An effective message will cause people to take notice and pass it around – making it more viral.

Chris Kelly, who I would imaging will be very busy over the next few years came up with several key points how leveraging social media will benefit political campaigns. He wrote this paper, pointing out how Facebook, MySpace, etc. will be used for branding, voter registration, fundraising, volunteering, and voter turnout. He seemed a bit at unease at making forecasts regarding privacy. My guess is that’s more likely an evolving process with more than a few bumps and detours in the road.

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.

Steve Rubel has been having some great posts lately. Here’s one that got me thinking about how we view online traffic.

Online publishers and online advertisers still seem to view traffic as the most important measure for media buying decisions. Often with good reason. The nature of today’s publishing models makes it that there is no alternative that could become the predominant metric for developing ad rates for publishers and selecting media buys for advertisers.

We’ve got news sites and blogs that people want to read. We’ve got social networks that involve people wanting to interact with one another. We’ve got ecommerce sites that people want to buy things from. We’ve got sites filled with CGM that people want to experience and share. And we’ve got search engines that have been primarily used for inquiries. There are other content models out there, each having their own unique relationship model with visitors.

Content models affect the purpose of the traffic and the purpose of the traffic affects user experience which in turn affect ad models. Or something like that. I’d also argue that, on many sites, content models bypass user experience and directly affect ad models. Think MySpace and all those ringtone ads. Ridiculous.

Each of these have an effect as to how an advertiser views the quality of the audience. Which means that there are many factors a media buyer must weigh before making a purchase. And those factors will of course vary from site to site.

Then when one takes into account HOW someone gets to a site and their actual point of entry, it becomes that much more of a mess to figure out.

I’d say that the importance of traffic is on a sliding scale, depending on all of the above factors and more.

This is why I think that the combination of behaviorial and contextual advertising is all the more important. That’s because, if you are an advertiser, you are buying something that is both topical (contextual) and reflective of a mindset and the actions that come from that mindset (behavioral). It makes sense both quantitatively and qualitatively.

Just like the alternative, search engine marketing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chris Cunningham of Freewebs has put forward a suggested metric for measuring the effectiveness of widgets as an advertising vehicle. In a MediaPost article, Widget Marketing Metrics That Matter, he outlines the three metrics that matter most: views, usage, and uploads/installs.

Uploads/installs are obviously the most important as it shows how many people have gone out of their way and chosen to bring a particular brand (or at least the brand’s widget) into their online presence for others to see and potentially interact with.

Usages play a key role because is involves a visitor who has chosen to embark on that interaction. To experience what the widge has to offer, so to speak.

And views are important because they likely go beyond spreading brand recognition. That’s because the view implicity knows that the person that downloaded the widget is giving that widget an endorsement of sorts. A de facto word of mouth.

So Chris came up with following formula to measure the effectiveness of widgets.

X Uploads = YX Usage = ZX Views = Z’X Banner Ad Impressions

OK. I’m trying to figure out what we’ve got here. This seems to be strictly a qualitative equation. It doesn’t seem to establish a relationship between Z and Y. I would think that would be key because it would draw a relationship between how often a widget was notice and how often someone chose to interact with it. And is YX the total amount of usages/ZX the total amount of views? Or are the measurements of the effectiveness of the usages and the views?

I’ve emailed Chris to learn more because I think that this is an interesting concept. And I agree with what Chris wrote around all of this equation.

It’s been a long time since I’ve had by butt in a math class. :)

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.

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.

Over the next 13 months, we’re going to have to endure yet another campaign season here in the States. Two primaries and then a long, drawn out general election. One way to deflect these attacks is through defensive SEO. It helps suppress concerted attacks by depressing negative search results while increasing positive ones. And I think it will be vital. Hopefully, others will listen.

We’ve got a bitterly divided electorate here in the states. There doesn’t seem to be much give from the hard right or hard left. I fully believe that both sides will be going full force to destroy one another. That’ s not just the eventual nominees, but candidates from all levels, the interest groups that back them, and other assorted key players.

We’re going to see a lot of dirty tricks online. We’re going to see rumor mongering. We’re going to see sleaze come out of the woodworks.

That’s why I think that stakeholders must look to invest NOW in defensive SEO. They need to learn what is out there and what is likely out there. They need to have a rapid response mechanism that limits or eliminates damage.

In the online arena, information can spread fast. Damaging information can spread faster. We’re likely to see successful attacks out of nowhere. Sort of like we did back in 2000 when citizens of South Carolina were told, via telephone calls just before the primary, that US Senator John McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child.

But this goes beyond those candidates. We’ll see attacks on advocacy organizations and on key influentials. Often people in politics like to destroy their opposition.

One way to deflect these attacks is through defensive SEO. It helps suppress concerted attacks by depressing negative search results while increasing positive ones. And I think it will be vital. Hopefully, others will listen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I sort of like the new My Times offered by the New York Times. It is basically iNYT, I guess, and it feels like it is based on the iGoogle platform. I am going to mess around with it over the next few days. This News Aggregator Portal pretty much leaves the Post, the FT, and the Journal in the dust.

The best thing about http://my.nytimes.com is that it is an agnostic, neutral, platform that not only allows you to subscribe to any new and feed source, but it also helps you along by allowing you to choose the sources, news, and feeds suggested by the editors, writers, and columnists from the staff of the New York Times, called Journalists’ Suggestions. Very cool.

This is the sort of selfless act that will help the NYT survive any painful evolutions, conversions, or shifts that result from the aggressive changes enforced by social media, citizen journalism, decontextualized content, and universal RSS-powered online content. Bravo!

I am amazed and intrigued by the United States Military and Intelligence Complex. I mean, I have lived “inside the Beltway” since 1988 of my own volition — I am neither a govvie nor a contractor.

“While the US intelligence community has a long history of expensively botched computer systems, it does seem like they’ve suddenly became [sic]  Web 2.0 believers. Last year we wrote about the internal Wikipedia-like offering called Intellipedia, that would let members from different agencies in the intelligence community share information more easily. It appears that things have progressed beyond that as well. They now have a social networking app just for the intelligence community, called A-Space, along with a del.icio.us clone and internal blogs. Of course, it seems like some in the intelligence arena (especially those who happen to be undercover) aren’t entirely thrilled with the concept — but it will be interesting to find out how it develops (as if we’ll ever find out). What would be really nice to know is how much these efforts are costing compared to the $600 million that was thrown away on useless computer systems.” Via Tech Dirt

Long-story-short, the kids who staff Langley and the rest — DIA, NSA, DHS, NRO, DOE, FBI, DNI, NGA, ONI, and State — have lots of money and talent these days. I reckon that they’re running technologies and solutions that are squarely sitting in 2027. We’ll see. What I admire most, however is how Intelligence is leveraging Open Source Intelligence (OSINT), Social Media, and Web 2.0 strategies. I can’t wait to see what’s next.

When Mark and I wrote a Web 2.0 strategy overview for a Very Massive European Telekom, one of the qualities all the properties offered was freedom: portable data, flexible access, and “free beer.” Thing is, when folks get cool stuff for free and there are no ads, they usually wonder, “who’s paying for this?”

“Venture capitalists tend to be fans of ad-driven sites since advertising revenue theoretically covers the cost of giving away a Web service free, and free sites attract users much faster than sites that charge money. Such sites are typically also cheap to run because there is often no need for customer-service agents or costs for physical goods. So such companies can have high profit margins if they succeed. Many of today’s hottest Web properties are based on the online-ad model, including Google Inc., which pairs ads with search results, and social-networking site Facebook Inc.” Via WSJ

Sometimes, displaying ads is a psychological operation, “we’re not baiting you. This service will always be free. We’re not going to, all of a sudden, start charging. We won’t go out of business.” Serving ads on your Web 2.0 site might never really become a profit center, especially if you’re subscription-driven or sell products, but it does allow tend to reassure visitors that neither you nor they are a fool. Running ads also makes a site look less like a hobby, since many “weekend” Ruby on Rails Web 2.0 platforms can look a little half-baked.

Ads also offer an “exit” since there should never be a dead-end on any one of your web pages: if your site doesn’t give your visitor what he wants, maybe an ad will.

I love the Wall Street Journal newspaper as it is, on my porch, every morning. I also love it on XM Radio. The only reason I support the purchase of the Wall Street Journal by Rupert Murdoch is because the online Wall Street Journal really sucks, even as a paid member. It makes Jesus cry. It makes me cry. I am crying right now. I should post a photo.

The site is slow, heavy, inelegant, unresponsive, and poorly-optimized. The site also kills my browsers, both Firefox and IE7. And that’s coming from a daily-reader, a dead-tree subscriber, and a total fan! If you’re not a subscriber, things get worse. Permalinks lead to teasers and dead-ends, and there is zero-semblance of any development past Web 1.0. I am appalled. I am disgusted, and I am willing to sacrifice the WSJ to the altar of News Corp!

Okay, okay, the Financial Times web site makes me cry too (I am a daily subscriber to the FT as well and love it so much, as well) . So, here’s hoping that Rupurt Murdoch buys the FT soon, as well.