Swift Kick

2010-02-09T19:37:00.001-08:00

#Speaker: #Sales Funnel and #SocialMedia in #Denver Mar. 18 http://pd.am/tj #RealEstate

New Location, Same Swift Kick

2010-01-04T09:17:00.000-08:00

All new and future posts can be found on our new website. Please visit us often. Thanks.

The Joyous Pain of Parenting

2009-12-28T13:27:00.000-08:00

The end of the year being about reflection and renewal, this post is not about social media, or marketing, or small business. We'll get back to ROI, strategy and new media soon enough. This is about me and my family, and winter break. Perhaps you'll find a bit of yourself here.

I have found leaving my children at school to be the most excruciating element of parenting.

Only now, as I approach 40, do I understand my mother’s unrelenting demand for academic excellence while lamenting, “I hate school. It takes babies away from their mothers.”

Only now do I understand my father’s nightly dinnertime drill about my whereabouts, companions and lessons learned during prior hours; and his requirement that some degree of satisfactory response be delivered before the conversation dropped.

The experience of separating from one’s children on a daily basis is one to which one grows increasingly but perhaps never fully accustomed. The act of steeling oneself against emotions when dropping off a three-year-old at daycare is effortlessly forgotten by the time the habit has formed of viewing the back of her waving hand disappear into the current of pedestrian egress from the car drop-off line.

We spend winter breaks coordinating schedules with family members and business partners to account for safeguarding and entertaining our children, moving from logistic to logistic and insuring that the basics are covered; that our charges are each maintained satisfactorily and sufficient overlap among schedules exists. We decorate, attend parties and events, send cards, swap presents and shop. We stay on the move. We assure and comfort clients and partners that in a very short time, the holidays will end, our kids will all be back in school and some normalcy can return to the precious, precious schedules that govern our pursuits of profit and productivity.

Today, with one week remaining in winter break, my daughter’s teacher sent this video. It is a brief, light collection of snapshots, I’m sure delivered to parents with a goal of reassurance. “Here’s what your kids are up to when you leave them in our care. See? All is well, they’re doing great. You can feel fine about bringing them back in January.” Maybe we can show it to the kids to get them eager to return to school. Santa’s not coming back for a whole year, may as well go hang out with your friends, right? And where are they? At school.

Your kid is not in the video so to you it is but another slide montage put to music. My beautiful and talented wife happens to count the school among her clients, and so she is frequently on site. She practically narrated the piece while we watched. I, on the other hand, could not speak at all.

For me, watching the video was an intensely bittersweet experience. It demonstrates to me that my daughter is socially astute and has overcome separation anxiety, that she can thrive in this environment. It reminds me that the ultimate reward of my parenting efforts is absolute assurance that with each passing day, she needs me less.

Perhaps, when she reaches my age, she will understand why her mother and I answer questions about homework problems only with more questions, why the TV cannot be turned on until schoolwork is complete, why the daily requirement of discussing “three things that happened to me at school today” with Dad before dinner is done is so constant and inflexible.

For now, I will watch the video again and push the moisture from my eyes. Our family will enjoy what remains of winter break together. And with each day, as she grows increasingly independent, I will pray for her to know, someday, the unequaled joy that comes only from the daily heartbreak of kissing her children goodbye.

Should I add my Twitter account to LinkedIn?

2009-11-19T20:28:00.000-08:00

Love that you ask.

The story so far: You received an email from LinkedIn. It said you could:

1. Make your Twitter account visible on your profile
2. Use #in or #li to share posts from Twitter to your LinkedIn status
3. Add the Tweets app to share your Twitter activity on your profile

So this is an aggregator. A short time ago, Facebook started enabling users to automatically have their Facebook status updates post to their Twitter accounts. LinkedIn is offering this feature. Aggregators are good.

But are they always? The LinkedIn application goes both ways, i.e. when you post on Twitter, your LinkedIn status gets updated.

If you ever hear me speak, you'll probably hear me talk about culture and social capital. Social capital is the currency of social networks. Behaving inconsistently with the culture of the network begets a social capital deficit.

I can't imagine everyone who has an opinion on this feels the same way, and certainly it depends at least somewhat on your goals, your use of the tool, your desires for your personal brand, but here's where this might be a round peg in a square hole.

The cultures of the two networks are not totally compatible. LinkedIn is the office. It's all about work. It's like a business meeting. When you post a status update, you're delivering a report. For example, at this writing, the most recent status update on my LinkedIn news feed reads that my friend Doug Griess, attorney, is, "Doing a CLE re IP licensing issues."

Harumph, yes, but absolutely what is expected on a LinkedIn status update. Doug earns a little social capital.

Twitter is where we go when we leave the office. We talk shop, sure, but we have opinions about it. Compared to the stoic structure of LinkedIn, Twitter is an unpredictable crowded bar with many voices talking about any number of disonnected topics.

Many of us "tweet" and "re-tweet" with great frequency, or several at a time. The content of these posts may be opinion, more social than business, an "@" reply, etc. We're not accustomed to seeing this on LinkedIn. Chances are, we're connected and visible to professionals who use LinkedIn exclusively because they don't appreciate the hieroglyphics and glib chatter they find on Twitter. A quick check of my "All Friends" feed on TweetDeck gives me the opportunity to learn about, "mind blowing hyperrealistic structures," and tells me, "puppys (sic.) are cute," and, "I love this video!" The presence of any of these in a LinkedIn status update will cost the author social capital. (The presence of these in my Twitter feed tells me I need to make time for housekeeping...)

If you do link the two accounts, I strongly recommend taking the option to post only the "tweets" that you tag with "#in" or "#li." If you don't have a grip on hashtags, here's a nice primer. If the term "hashtag" is foreign to you vis-a-vis Twitter, I recommend passing on linking Twitter and LinkedIn.

I do think LinkedIn is to be commended for giving this a shot. For some, this will be a nice time saver and may allow a few to dip a toe into Twitter.

I also offer kudos to LinkedIn for providing a 1:1 communication to all users and introducing this change as an option. In this way it has shown itself to be more in tune with customer service and the expectations of its membership base than a certain other Internet social network that shall remain nameless here but whose name may rhyme with, "space hook."

Social Media ROI: Are you a Service or a Sandwich?

2009-11-08T10:59:00.000-08:00

I love my monthly Internet Social Marketing think tank. This month, we're tackling ROI (okay, probably more like pushing it around...). There may be nothing more important for businesses to measure, right? The organizers this month asked me for a list of recommended applications for social media ROI measurement. It's cool and timely, because I'm working on an ebook compiling the tools and differences among promotion, measurement and monitoring services.

So here are a few quick answers: Google Analytics, Social Mention, Search Monitor, Facebook Lexicon.

Unfortunately, the question's wrong. As my new favorite blogger, Jason Falls, points out, we're applying old metrics to new tools or measuring what's convenient and known rather than what matters.

This article, as most Mashable stuff does, contains some great info. The preso itself makes some good points but goes astray at a critical juncture.

I am unconvinced that the nascent, dynamic medium is realistically trackable as presented here. I believe the true opportunity of the medium is not, especially at this stage of the industry, in customer acquisition but rather in customer retention.

Your social media audience is a closed, opt-in network. For cheap, transactional items like coffee or a sandwich you can acquire customers with occasional giveaways, and over time you can change purchasing habits to your favor, just as with the traditional coupon model. But what about professional services, B2B‘s, products and services with higher barriers to entry? The ROI equation becomes more complicated, the cycle for measurement much longer, the criteria more intricate. For these, the ROI equation is not, “How many more customers did we get?” but rather, “How many customers have we saved?” Not, "Are we spending less to acquire customers?" but, "Are our current customers rewarding our efforts with wallet share?"

Though qualitative, I think social media can be harnessed for brand and product development. Well used, an ROI equation might include, “What do we know about our customers, our product, the perception of us in the market, what changes or improvements have we made stemming from our social media efforts?” But don't take my word for it; take Frank Eliason's.

Ann Handley of MarketingProfs asks this question about social media ROI: “What’s the ‘I’?” Have we answered that question? As a business owner, I’m less interested in the number of re-tweets, mentions, etc. Show me sales, revenue. Social media--unless you're a sandwich, a movie ticket, a chotchkie--just isn’t there yet. This isn’t direct mail or an 800 #, where you put it out there and see who responds. This is engagement, relationship building. It provides a look at the very real, stark contrast between “Marketing” and “Advertising.”

Now...re-tweets, "shares" and backlinks are the greatest if it represents your customers becoming an effective sales force. If you're willing to invest in the creation of product champions, to let your customers tell you how to make your product more meaningful to them, how your service must adapt in order to provide greater value, social media presents a tremendous opportunity. There's your opportunity for market share gain...though indirect.

A discussion of applications is cart before horse. I love the topic for the group and I’m sure we’ll come out of this with a bunch of links and apps but the search for ROI is too important, complicated and currently nebulous to decide that the statistics such services render are meaningful just because they’re available.

Without a clear understanding of the medium and meaningful goals, all the re-tweets and click-throughs in the world mean nothing.

The Importance of the “Personal Note”

2009-11-07T11:20:00.000-08:00

Here’s a little personal “share” with an “ask” or two at the end.

Somewhere between the ages of 7 and 17 I got to where I hated clutter.

I’m not to the point of being OC, I don’t think, but I am “If in doubt, throw it out.” If I’ve been holding on to something thinking that a use for it, or a person with a use for it, will come along, and it’s been a while and that hasn’t happened, it goes to the curb with a “free” sign, out with the trash or to charity.

Ironically, I sometimes keep a messy desk. While I prefer it neat and organized, moving forward on specific deadlines and focusing on what’s possible frequently pushes filing and recycling down the priority list. With me, there’s merit to the notion that one’s outward appearance is an indicator of one’s inner state of mind, so eventually I have to set aside time to clean and organize. I find the organization of physical things helps immensely to clear the virtual clutter in my head.

As we age, life reveals shades of grey. Nine years ago my wife and I started having children. It turns out that I don’t “hate” stuff in the middle of the floor, I just “dislike” it. My love for my children, my intense desire for them to be happy during their days provides tolerance for what strikes me first as “clutter.”

Internet social networks provide a new type of “clutter,” and I think I’ve decided to change the way I deal with it. I’m talking about “friend” or “connection” requests.

Not everyone uses Facebook and/or LinkedIn, for example, the same way. In my forthcoming Ebook and current lecture topic, The Social Network Compass, I talk about a number of concepts including the choices people make about their use and presence on Internet social networks: Personal/Professional, Inclusive/Selective.

Some people join Facebook for the sole purpose of sharing pictures of their grandchildren with a single party. Others seek purely business-oriented connections with anyone who will have them. Most of us land somewhere in between, we’re a lot or a little of all of the above. There’s no “right” answer; the question isn’t black versus white.

Some time ago, about Year 4 B.F. (Before Facebook), I took an open, “inclusive” stance toward connecting on LinkedIn. It opened my professional network and provided collaborative and fruitful business development opportunities. It also opened my network to a guy who spammed and scammed everyone about bogus real estate deals. I’m accountable for that. No matter how hard I scrub I can’t seem to rid myself of the stench. I’m sure everyone’s forgiven me but me, but that’s conversational fodder for me and a therapist. Onward, to the point.

The fact that I do post pictures of my kids on Facebook for the benefit of their grandmother in Texas, that I talk smack with friends whose emotional ties are to sports teams inferior to my favorites, dictates, for me, that I have to be more selective on Facebook than on LinkedIn. (On LinkedIn, I’m all business. And so should you be. Culture.)

Settings, yes, I know. I coach on them, their importance and their optimization. Still, it’s not the end-all. Depending on nascent technologies and hackable networks to protect your identity is a house of cards.

So, a couple of things here: When you get an email from me, the autosignature has a link to my LinkedIn profile…and not to my personal profile on Facebook. I think the culture of Facebook dictates that the social capital required to talk business is earned through the sharing of your human side; it makes me more likely to feel comfortable doing business with you. Is this a hard and fast “policy?” No. Somewhat arbitrary, even, perhaps. Shades of grey.

Here’s an area, though, where the contrast is beginning to show. Currently, I have a couple dozen “friend” requests on Facebook to which I have not responded. Reasons:

I have not met or do not remember the requestor, and
The requestor has not accompanied the request with a note on how we might know each other, work together in the future or use the connection toward a specific goal or objective.

I am not an introvert. I get out. I meet lots of people. I excel at introducing power partners to each other. So, despite the fact that many of these people have “mutual friends” with me, belong to the same professional organization(s) I do, etc., the answers to 1 and 2 above are assumptions. When I assume, my network can get spammed. I’m accountable for that.

I’ve rejected requests for which such commonalities do not avail but kept these couple dozen around, figuring that eventually, based on the fact that we run in the same crowds, we’ll meet. That said, for thesee couple dozen, it’s been a while and no such meeting has occurred.

Not all of my “friends” have the same connection criteria I do. That’s fine. They’re more inclusive. I respect that. I may move in that direction. For now, though, these requests have become clutter. I think I’m going to put them in a box and take that box to the curb. The man comes early next Monday.

Terribly sorry if this offends.

In the future, if you’d like to avoid people like me treating you like this, I respectfully urge you to, when making a “friend” request (or a “connection” request on LinkedIn), take a moment to click that little link that says, “Add a personal message,” and make plain your intent. Chances are you’re a lovely person and an expert in your field. If so, a brief, meaningful exchange will illuminate mutual opportunities.

So that’s “ask” #1: Please let me know who you are. I genuinely like most people I meet in person, online, otherwise. But I’m not given to random, anonymous connections. Accountable.

“Ask” #2: Your reaction. Where do you set on the continuum? Are you with me? Am I totally flippin’ crazy or maybe just think a little too much? What’s your experience here? If you don’t “add a personal message,” why not?

If we keep thinking and communicating, we’ll crack this nut. Thanks.

Privacy and Social Networks

2009-08-26T09:19:00.000-07:00

Any of us who train, coach, manage, or market in the social media realm encounter a host of frequent objections. One of them is, "How can I keep my personal and professional personas separate?"

There are many different answers to this question. Here is mine: You can't. The ship has sailed, the horse is out of the barn, that was yesterday, live in the now. That said, your entire life doesn't have to be an open book.

If you've ever done business outside of the good old US of A, you just don't find this innate need to hide personal matters from business partners. Quite the opposite, in fact: People want to know who you are, to develop a relationship with you, first. Then if they like you and feel comfortable around you, they'll move to business. Perhaps this comes with having cultures and economies that have developed over thousands of years as compared to a couple hundred, perhaps for other reasons.

Regardless, the interactive and contributory nature of Web 2.0 is irreversible. As you read this, the planet is shrinking. Walls and filters are disintegrating. Do you know what Americans age 40 and under do when they meet you, get handed your business card or hear your name referenced as a potential business partner? They type your name into Google. How do you influence what they see? Social media; social networks in particular. Strategically used, your brand is most easily and strongly established with LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, Meetup and others.

Facebook, due to the casual and personal nature of the network, is rightly and naturally the greatest focus of concern. And yes, people do get scammed. So while you're living a pipe dream if you think in 2009 A.D. you can get away with being a respected intellectual by day and a rock and roll drunk by night, there are some things you should do to protect yourself. Here are my top four plus one.

Customize your Privacy Settings. Facebook in particular throws you in. You finally got so tired of getting emails from people to please join and long story short here you are. And, in spite of yourself, you might even be enjoying it. If you find yourself mixing business and personal, you're totally getting how to be a grown-up on Facebook. It's like going to a party, isn't it? More on that in a subsequent post. But when you start your account, Facebook starts connecting you with people, growing your network. It does not overtly prompt you to protect yourself. Make sure to hover your mouse over the "settings" link in the upper right corner of your Facebook home page and do some clicking.
Don't overshare. First, don't post on Facebook that you're having romance problems. Second, you don't have to tell Facebook everything. Now, sometimes you want to tell Facebook something so it can help you connect with other people but you're not sure if you want to display it to everyone. In that case, put the information in your profile, tell Facebook not to display it, and go back to #1.
Don't start with Facebook. Don't put your personal Facebook profile on your email autosignature. Send your new prospective partner to LinkedIn and/or Twitter. Then, once the professional relationship is established to the point where you find yourself asking about each other's kids and softball games, "friend" up on Facebook.
Set a Google alert for your name. Anytime someone says something about you or your business, you want to know, right? Companies of size, especially but not exclusively, should also perform periodic searches in Twitter and make sure to keep the "Mentions" column active in TweetDeck.
Stop getting loaded in public. And hide the cameras when you have your buddies over for a keg and the game or host the girls for a "passion party."

How are you managing? Are these your top five? Have you tried these steps? If so, did they work for you? If not, why not?

The Day Social Media Became Important

2009-06-14T19:19:00.000-07:00

On June 1, 1980, Ted Turner flipped the switch on a 24-hour cable TV channel devoted entirely to news. He stuck out his jaw, folded his arms and declared his new venture would sign off at the end of the world, not before. Everywhere, people who knew better sniggered and wished they had offered Captain Outrageous the title for a bridge. Nobody wanted to watch the news that badly. Was there that much news? Of course not. Silly southern man. Harumph.

On January 28, 1986, CNN got its watershed moment when the Challenger shuttle exploded over Florida, killing high school teacher Christa McAuliffe, who was historically aboard. The country, including President Ronald Reagan, stopped working and tuned into nonstop coverage. The skeptics were converted.

30 years later those skeptics are reincarnated as Twitter haters. In the near future they will look back on June 13, 2009, as the day the paradigm shifted, that web users overtook news producers in making programming decisions.

These "twits" did so not with large capital investments in satellite and cable technology and broadcast centers but with the contracted and connected state of the world. CNN, content to report that an election in Iran was over and the status quo remained, then give way to pop culture drivel, chose not to report on the escalating conflict in the street as Iranian citizens bravely protested the results.

It should be noted that Fox News and MSNBC committed the same sin.

Tweets from ground zero of the violent protests in Iran would not so easily turn their back on this strife. At a microblog per second, CNN and the Iranian oppressors got theirs. When the American mainstream media turned its back, Twitter revolted. The social network, astutely realizing the gravity of the moment and, undoubtedly, an opportunity to secure its place in history, delayed planned site maintenance so that communications could continue unabated. Not convinced social networking grew up this month? The U.S. State Department disagrees.

Folks, the mainstream media lost its way some time ago. Tolerance of plagiarism, a lemming mentality and a focus on ideological demographic appeal have destroyed what once plausibly masqueraded as journalism. For now--right now--you can turn on CNN and see Anderson Cooper's concerned face as he tosses to an authentic Christiane Amanpour. You can thank Twitter users for that.

In a week, we'll be back to American Chopper interviews. When that happens, remember that there actually are important things happening in the shadows of the world, and for those who care to look, Twitter is providing a lens and some light.

Facebook: Real Money for Virtual Goods?

2009-06-10T04:53:00.000-07:00

First, thanks to my great friend Brian Olson for this blog title.

Second, if you've read me before you know I have this crazy idea that sooner rather than later, regardless of how popular you are, if you're going to be in business you have to make money. You also know I have my lens focused on the social media industry. It's great that Facebook is getting itself valued at $10 billion with a "b," but the crash is looming if it can't leverage its membership toward profit.

The latest thought thrown on the wall? Here it is, as reported by Rich Cherecwich of iMedia (iMedia has lots of great stuff) on June 3, 2009:

Facebook has officially entered the mainstream, but the über-popular social network still faces doubts about a monetization strategy. That may change with a new internal payments plan the social network is currently experimenting with that could help it become less reliant on advertising, the Financial Times reports.

The new system allows Facebook members to purchase credits and then use those credits to buy virtual goods through third-party applications that run on the social network.

Users are apparently spending big money on games and applications that run on the Facebook platform, to the tune of an estimated $500 million this year. Facebook will retain a percentage of every transaction, which could represent up to one-third of the company's income, according to the Times.

So I put this out there on Facebook and asked my friends for their thoughts. Then I stole them and put them in a blog. I'm like that.

Andy Mikesell, MBA, Director of mCommerce:

I think the application play is a tough one and creating revenue will be a small organic play. iTunes-like stores for digital goods is pretty saturated and Facebook as a concept is a free commodity. The statistics for Facebook are impressive; has it peaked at the consumer level in North America?

Andy also suggests a custom, enterprise-level model for revenue. Andy's pretty sharp and now that I don't live in a frat house with him I can say that with a straight face. Here's why Andy's right, that it's a "tough play:" 1) Most of these third-party applications are junk. The fact that they're free reduces user expectations and mitigates complaints about poor product quality. Dealing with complaints costs money. 2) A difference between Facebook and LinkedIn (you needed another one?) is that the former lets anybody just post their applications. The latter has a rather stringent approval process, the opening criteria for which most who submit to Faceook cannot satisfy. Will this move bring about a change in Facebook's standards? That would mitigate its profit from the move.

Admittedly, when it comes to calling Facebook applications, "junk," mine is but a layman's opinion. Karen Pellegrin, owner of Kelpworks Creative, however, is a bona fide expert:

As one of a team of game designers myself, none of the games and apps on Facebook are good enough to start charging me. Most of those apps are created by inexperienced people on facebook and just random thoughts... which is fine if it's free. That's just part of the fun of Facebook.
However, they better start hiring actual game developers and boosting their monies to hire those developers, or they are going to bomb out in the end. Just take a look at
the success of mini-game sites like Popcap. They hire lots of designers and developers for their games and they know who they are... a game site, not a social networking site.

So, yes, Steve, some people will buy anything. The question then becomes, what does it cost you to sell it to them?

Karen's right about something else, too: Trying to be all things to all customers is a sure path to failure. Going through an identity crisis on Other People's Money is a great way to go broke, quickly.

Social Media, Scientology and the Simpsons

2009-05-29T19:41:00.000-07:00

Ideally, we praise publicly and critcize privately. But if we all did that, there wouldn't be much in the way of interesting blog fodder.

When I was the guest on the May 26, 2009, episode of The Experience Pros Radio Show, some of what we talked about was "what not to do" with regard to behavior on social networks.

On May 29, 2009, The Church of Scientology provided by example a much more definitive response than I did on the radio show. (Article: Wikipedia Blocks Church of Scientology From Editing Pages)

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that features content provided by...well, anybody. It's wonderful for a quick answer and quite often for some pretty darn good in-depth knowledge of a subject. Example? Here's everything you ever wanted to know about the cathode ray tube but were afraid to ask. Why the cathode ray tube? I'm watching a Simpsons nostalgia episode on TV while writing this.

For the same reason it's popular, however, Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source of information for articles or research papers. It's also frequently derided by self-defined intellectuals and pop culture critics. Here's one of my favorite Wiki passages from The Simpsons:

Bart: So Dean Martin would show up at the last minute and do everything in just one take?
Homer: That's right.
Bart: But Wikipedia said he was passionate about rehearsal!
Homer: Don't you worry about Wikipedia. We'll change it when we get home. We'll change a lot of things.

Because anybody can post anything about anything, entities of size often (should) task their PR teams with monitoring their Wikipedia site (along with other trackable web mentions). When false or incorrect information is entered, they correct it.

Okay, here's another Simpson's Wikipedia reference, but only because it's topical. My adoration of the show has only so much to do with it.

Snake: Hey, baby, listen carefully: someone's been editing my biography on Wikipedia. I want you to kill him.

Snake gives us a for-sure "what not to do" in regard to reacting to criticism on social media. So far as we know, Scientology hasn't gone this far. In fact, the nature of what the Church was doing--defending itself against criticism and providing its own point of view--wasn't the problem. It was the frequency and unforseeable end of the back-and-forth conflict an organized group of Scientologists were having with an organized group of critics on the site.

In most cases, best practice is to publicly acknowledge the already public complaint and move toward resolution. Let your entire potential market witness the fact that you care. "Win a brother over," as Experience Pro Eric Reamer puts it. In this case, "Anonymous"--the anti-Scientology group--wasn't going to get won over. Unfortunately for the Church, its mode of response overloaded Wikipedia's servers, and now they'll have to get more creative on protecting their brand.

With expenses outpacing revenues for social media giants such as Facebook and Twitter, largely due to increasing infrastructure burdens, your strategy for engaging critics must take into account the macro forces impacting the industry.

Twitter's Kicking, Not Quitting

2009-05-16T07:28:00.001-07:00

The Beginning of "Quitter"
I recently joined a debate on Twitter...actually, it might be "the" debate on Twitter, at least in terms of the subject, because it seems many people now deem themselves ready to announce to the world their expert analysis on the network's long-term viability.

Here's a link to the article by my friend and a very intelligent, compassionate and accomplished individual: Steve Baker (who has an incredible story in a marvelous book, by the way, also available here) http://www.pushingwateruphillblog.blogspot.com/

Here is my comment to Steve's post:

Twitter...has recently launched some business-oriented initiatives that may cement its profit model—something with which every player in this nascent industry struggles—and move the product beyond “fad.“ In the next 24 months this industry will experience consolidation, shakeout and a move toward standardization. Twitter may change but its brand is too strong within the market to just disappear.

Here are two of the initiatives Twitter has undertaken that set it apart:

SalesForce
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=15032
Here's my mantra to companies and organizations debating whether or not to begin and maintain a social media presence: You don't get to decide whether or not your company uses social networking. If you have a business with customers, you get to decide at what point you join the discussion about you. With SalesForce, when a customer "tweets" about your company, product or service, you know and record all available information about that customer and her comment, and immediately gain an opportunity to interface, publicly, about the concern or compliment. That's powerful stuff.

Listen, I think SalesForce offers poor training, falls short on the front end of the sales cycle, sells its very high-priced product to anyone who has the ability--and not necessarily the need--to buy it, and I know for a fact that it has lots of dissatisfied users who use the product to a fraction of its potential. I also think SalesForce, like its competitors, aggressively forwards the unconscionable myth that purchasing software will solve your Customer Relationship Management (CRM) challenges...throw money at a problem and the problem will go away. That said, it is the mac daddy of enterprise CRM software and any social network pursuing an innovative revenue model would be wise to partner up with SalesForce and bet on the come, i.e. that the company will employ its current success toward addressing the aforementioned weaknesses. Twitter has done exactly this. Twitter may, in fact, provide the vehicle by which SalesForce works with its customers to identify and resolve its own CRM issues. Talk about powerful references and testimonials--and differentiation?

ExecTweets (http://www.exectweets.com/)
Good article here http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2009/05/18/story11.html?b=1242619200%5E1829407)

ExecTweets caters to big business owners, offering itself as a communications tool for customers and employees. Given the continuing reprisals people incur from their employers stemming from their conduct on Facebook, it will be especially interesting to watch the development of the latter part of that equation. Anyway, these big shots are actually giving it a go. Twitter has seized upon a fundamental truth about guys in charge: You'll never go broke appealing to their egos.

If you can win over a corporate CEO, you have a future. Big companies are terrified of change and any technology they didn't invent or of which they don't own a piece. Plus, these people are busy and demanding--there's an understatement. Getting them to experiment, and being able to log favorable comments about your product, is a monumental accomplishment in and of itself.

Conclusion
In the mid-90's, most of us didn't "get" the Internet. In 1995 I worked for what was, at the time, the biggest cable TV company in the world and we weren't certain we should maintain a web page.

I'm not a "power Tweeter" and I don't--at the moment--have a strategy simply aimed at achieving a huge Twitter followership. But I think to be dismissive of the tool is to demonstrate a lack of research and knowledge.

I do agree that of all these social networks, Twitter is the most difficult to define and understand. I, for one, found it largely unmanageable until Bill Tamminga showed me TweetDeck (http://www.tweetdeck.com), and I think Twitter only becomes useful and manageable when used through third-party applications (you might also try http://seesmic.com/, http://www.minggl.com/, and/or http://www.twhirl.org/... but ye cats, throw a rock in any direction and you'll hit five more). This doesn't mean it's going to disappear; it means it has some challenges to address. Big difference.

And big differentiator, which makes it all the more likely that Twitter doesn't just survive, it thrives. It changes, but it thrives.

False Choices: Facebook and Four Way Stops

2009-05-10T23:07:00.000-07:00

"What is a friend? A friend is a single soul dwelling within two bodies." - Aristotle

How to Change the Wind
My wife--my business partner, mother to my children, my reason for living--directs traffic from inside her car. She'll sit in the driver's seat with the windows up telling cars, "Okay, now you go. Now I go. Hey! Not you! You don't go yet!" I wonder at times if she actually believes she can dictate how people will move through the most mysterious and misunderstood anomaly of American suburban travel: The four-way stop.

Of course, she cannot. In fact, it may be she who doesn't know the rules. It may be that the rules are subject to individual interpretation up to the moment when a cop arrives and starts handing out tickets for doing it wrong. Of course, when the cop leaves, we're right back to the same anarchic state in which we were before he got there. Fat lot of good that did us.

So Facebook was created for young people to be silly and make nice with old friends and now people (like me) have shown up and are polluting the previously unspoiled air with business. "People I work with," I hear ad nauseum, "keep wanting to be my Facebook 'friend.' I don't want to 'friend' on Facebook with business people. That's what LinkedIn is for. How can I keep Facebook personal?"

If Only Everyone Were More Like Me
If I had a dollar for every time I'd heard this question, I'd have enough to mount a really spiffy public address system on the family vehicle so that my wife's verbal traffic directions may actually have some impact. I was once told Facebook wasn't made for business so it wasn't a good place for businesspeople to network and collaborate. I recently heard a speaker advise a group of entrepreneurs to decline business invitations on Facebook and direct them to LinkedIn.

Game that out. Doesn't work, does it? Did you tick anyone off? Did something get lost in translation? Did everyone currently or potentially in your network get the message?

Whatever these things started out to be is not what they are, nor what they will be. If you really need a place to misbehave online, there will be a social network that plays to your niche, that has intentionally poor search engine optimization and on which you can use a alias just in case. (Don't like that idea? Go to www.ning.com and start your own.) The overwhelming evidence is, however, that Facebook is being taken over by grown ups who behave online like they do in public, and who mix business with personal.

For more in-depth discussion on that matter, there are any number of blogs out there, including earlier issuances of Swift Kick.

Losing Your Lunch
Here's the converse, on which I could only buy a souped-up megaphone but that's definitely out there: "I don't care how wonderful your chicken salad sub was. I'm only on Facebook to do business. How can I filter out all the updates about how many pounds you've dropped using Wii and only get the business stuff?"

Good news: If you're not interested in other people and what matters to them, you won't have to worry about having too many customers. We connect on a personal level because we can, because we want to. We do business with people we know and understand. Don't believe me? Take a look at the "us vs them" model so prevalent in corporate America and tell me how it's doing these days. We are witnessing the end of an era; the dinosaurs who once ruled are disappearing into history. The continents of global business are drifting. We live in a world of transparency. I don't need a private eye; I have Google, LinkedIn and Facebook; and even if I don't know you I know someone who knows someone who does.

Within the next--oh, let's say two years, social media will develop content filters sophisticated enough to help you efficiently cut through this "clutter," but for now you're stuck with it. Oh, sure, you can "hide" content and we all do--I don't want to be responsible for bad language on my page,
for example, so I'll turn you off if you express yourself with naughty words--but think carefully because the same lady who likes to inform you of her satisfaction level with her pedicure might also be the same one who publicly laments her inability to find a satisfactory professional who can re-design her office interior, web page, company logo, etc., etc.

And really, I pity you. Facebook, I tell my audiences, is LinkedIn for humans. Leave yesterday's corporate behind and come be a human with the rest of us. Where did you go for lunch? Maybe I've been there. Maybe I had a funny experience. Maybe that's where Tom Brady knocked over my beer with his throwing arm the year after he won his first MVP award. Maybe that's just the beginning of a great story. Doesn't matter, really, you'll never hear it and we'll never connect on that level because you don't want to share your opinion of a chicken salad sub.

You have to operate within the culture. On LinkedIn, don't you dare talk about your lunch. On Facebook, eventually you have to. One's all business all the time, the other is where we go to let people know that maybe we are or will do business together and regardless, I care about whether or not you're doing well. That's not weakness and it's not a waste of time. It's being a person. There's not a magic formula on how much business vs how much personal you can do, but like anything else anymore be entertaining and informative or be left alone.

Separating "Me" and "Myself" from "I"
This will be quick: Are you a small business operator? Do you work for a company that has customers? Do you have accounts that you manage? If you answered "yes" to any one of these or virtually any other question about business, your personality is a large part of the product that you market. People will do business with people...(emphasize "people," pause for effect...)with whom they feel comfortable; people that they know. Want to be Zeke the buttoned-up financial analyst by day and "the Mad, Mad, Mad Zekester of Blood Underground, the best unsigned Goth/Death Metal Fusion band on the Eastern Seaboard" after dark? Sorry, um, Zekester, that ship has sailed. At least one of your multiple personalities is going to have to live "off the grid." And...well, his days are numbered, regardless. Truth finds a way.

Putting a Bow on it
Being all-powerful in any instance is not a realistic expectation. Social media is a nascent industry and it can't keep up with its own growth so some patience will be required. It will be a while until you'll be able to customize your tools to your preferred modus operandi.

You go be you. Act like your mother's watching. She might be. Act like you care and you might actually start to care.

Read Aristotle. It will make you smarter and you'll have some stuff to contribute if you're not ready to talk about culinary affairs or traffic; and it might help you come up with a creative way to get your smart, hard working, hot, sexy wife to start reading your blog.

Epilogue

In the countries that use four-way stops, pedestrians always have priority at crosswalks – even at unmarked ones, which exist as the logical continuations of the sidewalks at every intersection with approximately right angles – unless signed or painted otherwise.
Whichever vehicle first stops at the stop line – or before the crosswalk, if there is no stop line – has priority.
If two vehicles stop at the same time, priority is given to the vehicle on the right.
If three vehicles stop at the same time, priority is given to the two vehicles going in opposite directions, if possible.
If four vehicles stop, drivers usually use gestures and other communication to establish right-of-way.

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic)

Email and Social Media

2009-05-02T07:34:00.001-07:00

Prologue

Earlier this week I shared a Media Post article (http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=105012#comments) called, Social Vs. Email: It's The Wrong Debate. This morning I read an article in my local community newspaper about business and social media that contained a tongue-in-cheek assertion that, "email is for old people. (http://coloradocommunitynewspapers.com/articles/2009/04/28/littleton_independent/news/30_hc_biz_tweet_li_ce.txt) ."

I'm a "synergy" guy. I recently sat with a client listening to an advertising proposal from a big radio outfit that included integrated use of air time and Internet. Walking away from the meeting, I was asked if the proposal had merit. It did. These guys were good. "If I could only afford one component," asked my customer, "which one should it be?" None. Your tactics should take each other into account, build on each other and mutually reinforce a consistent branding theme as part of an overarching strategy built to achieve specific goals. The National Football League just held its annual college draft. It's easy to tell who's better at it. Teams who draft a running back because its a sexy pick and one is available lose ground to competitors who target a speedy outside linebacker at a value-commensurate point in the process because they're converting from a 4-3 defense to a 3-4.

So, when small business owners start asking themselves about whether to make the financial investment in an email campaign or the time investment in social media, they're already heading down the wrong path.

Expert Analysis
Still, the question about the future of email is valid. For a perspective I haven't encountered on blogs, microblogs, Google alerts, etc., I interviewed Suzanne Norman, Director of Community Relations for Emma (http://www.myemma.com/). Emma is "an email marketing and communications service that's taken a unique approach to web-based software."

Swift Kick is not sponsored but believes in promoting its contributors. Emma on Emma:

We think it should be easy to use (goodbye, cluttered interface). It should be made for you (farewell, generic templates). And it should even be fun (see ya around, support phone queue). It's all about email marketing in style, and it's why 20,000 small and midsize businesses, non-profits and agencies have chosen Emma to power their email newsletters and campaigns.

Suzanne Norman on "the future of email:"

How is social media impacting email?
With social media, there's a new inbox. It's not just email anymore. For every social network you join, you'll have private and public messages to check and reply to. That means a couple of things for small businesses sending email.

One, we've all got more information coming at us than ever. For a small business to get their email message to stand out, it's important to have a good grasp of the best practices. That means knowing what your subscribers want from you and how often they want to hear it. It means adding a personal touch to your campaigns so they fit in alongside emails from Aunt Bernice and notifications about yet another weird high school friend who found you on Facebook. And it means offering value to your subscribers, whether it's with your own content, insider information, links to other people's stuff, a discount or a special offer. It's what consumers expect in exchange for giving you their information, not to mention their time and attention.

Second, it's a reminder that small business owners need to know where their subscribers are and join them there. If, in addition to checking email, they're spending time on social networking sites - and 67 percent of folks say it's the number one thing they do online - then it's probably worth pairing your email efforts with a social media strategy.

How can they work in synergy?
I appreciate that question. A lot of the chatter out there tries to pit email against social media in some kind of caged communication channel death match. But I think they're both at their best when they complement each other. And they do, quite nicely. Email supports notifications and alerts that drive me to the, ahem, eight social networks I'm a part of.

I see folks send an email campaign then post a link to it on Twitter to extend its reach. Just as common, I love to see companies who've added links to their Twitter & Facebook pages in their email campaigns. And I frequently see folks tweeting a link to their email signup page, asking people to go beyond the casual 140-character level commitment and get to know their message and their brand at a whole new level.

It's also important to remember that each channel has its unique strengths. Social networks help keep your messages personal, timely, short, and very sharable. Email gives you a chance to pair those messages with particular segments of your audience and gives you plenty of visual real estate to show off great design and branding.

How will I use email 1 year from now? 3 years? 5?
Email's tremendously influential, and it'll continue to be 1, 3, and 5 years from now. Whether I'm asking as a friend, colleague or marketer, I can ask for your email address knowing it's overwhelmingly like you'll have one. Habeas put out some numbers last year showing that 67 percent of folks prefer email as a communications channel over other online vehicles. And 65 percent believe it'll be that way in five years. So that's what the numbers are telling us about the general perception.

And I think the inbox is and will continue to be a place where consumers are expecting and liking promotional and marketing messages. There are some fantastic numbers from Epsilon and ROI Research showing that 84 percent of customers like getting email from companies they registered with, and half of them saved messages for review later.

As an industry, where is email/email marketing in its life cycle (introduction, growth, maturity, decline)?
You know, it depends on who you ask. We talk to plenty of small business owners who either haven't tried or aren't familiar with email marketing, so for some, there's a tremendous amount of introduction still to be made.

In terms of growth, here's a nice statistic from Datran Media. They surveyed marketing executives, and email led the list of channels they're expected to increase their spending on in 2009, with nearly 60 percent budgeting more for email.

In another sense, I think there's a lot of growth happening around a renewed sense of best practices among email marketers out there. They're understanding that their audiences are more media savvy these days, that they have more sources for information than ever. So they're forgoing the tired old "batch and blast" approach. They're starting to segment their big list and craft different messages to different groups. They're adding more personalized information, and they're doing it with a personal touch. And they're testing different versions of subject lines, creative and content to see what their subscribers respond to. It's an encouraging trend for email as a whole.

Without those smarter tactics, consumers will get tired of the same companies sending the same discounts over and over again, and email will lose a bit of its effectiveness. I'd encourage small businesses to invest in the strategy and tools that make a more refined approach to email.

Conclusion
The world of "shotgun" emails is for yesterday. Use a rifle with a scope. Target. Ready, aim, then fire. Skip or rush either of those first two steps and negate the effectiveness of the third.

Time and money are limited commodities. Do not throw a dart and hope a tactic works. Set goals, form a strategy, resesarch what tactics work with each other to yield the best results within that strategy, and move toward implementation. If you're trying to decide between social media or email, shift that thinking to how you might use both to make the whole of your campaign greater than the sum of its parts.

Special thanks to Suzanne Norman and Gina LaMar of Emma for their assistance and contributions to this article.

MySpace Moves, Facebook Surprises

2009-04-25T20:46:00.000-07:00

Turn and Face the Strain

"Baby, I was never cool enough to get a job at a record store; but if I had, I
wouldn't want you anymore." - The Refreshments

We knew MySpace needed a new CEO. Small surprise, they picked the guy from Facebook who brought in all that dough from Microsoft. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/25/technology/companies/25myspace.html?_r=1&ref=technology.

Does this mean MySpace now starts to try to look and feel more like Facebook? And if so, which version of Facebook? The one that created all the buzz, flying to 200 members and gaining working professionals who are almost as likely to purchase a music store as they are digital music? Or the one that wants to be Twitter and that has initiated a large degree of denial and resistance among the faithful?

Swiftly, now, those "social media strategists" whose big idea is, "make a Facebook page for your business" can now turn their brains back on. This industry is nascent. Product quality across the board is poor. We are not anywhere close to having any sort of standardization. The lead dog will change. Cultures and demographics will continue to change. A stupendous amount of money has been invested by extremely large players in companies that can't, despite massive popularity and ubiquitous media exposure, settle on a revenue model that brings them to break even against their soaring infrastructure costs. Mildly problematic (he asked facetiously)?

Everything about the social media industry will change and change again. If you're telling your clients you have, "the answer," you'd best follow up immediately with, "for the moment." Letting your clients in on the fact that things are changing isn't good enough. To formulate strategies that position them--and you--to ride atop the crest of the change curve, you must be ready for the changes that haven't happened yet.

Look Out, You Rock and Rollers

One more chance, I'll try this time
I'll give you yours, I won't take mine
I'll listen up, pretend to care
Go on ahead, I'll meet you there - Blink 182

Why did Facebook accept the terms of service its users wrote despite the fact that turnout for the vote was so low? http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/techchron/detail?blogid=19&entry_id=38986 Lots of reasons. Here are some:

Good business move. Worst thing you can do is alienate your customers.
Though turnout was low, margin was disparate. 74 percent of the vote? Obama didn't even get that.
A gift for the Facebook PR department, and an act consistent with Facebook's culture.
The only justification they had for going with the rules they drew up would be that their self-defined threshhold of 30 percent
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebooks_site_governance_vote_a_massive_con.php wasn't reached. Imagine the uproar.

Okay, let's talk about these numbers. "In most online communities," writes usability guru Jakob Nielsen, "90 percent of users never contribute, nine percent...contribute a little and one percent of users account for almost all of the action. (http://www.useit.com/alertbox/participation_inequality.html)"

Quick math that explains a few things:

If Facebook charged $1 per YEAR for a subscription, and it has 200 million users, that equates to a gross revenue bump of $200 million per year, right? Wrong. It's at best ten percent of 200 million, as a few users will quit due to (completely misplaced) outrage (that demonstrates our lack of ability to separate "entitlement" and "utility" from "business" and "luxury item." But I digress...) and the vast majority of the passive 90 percent would choose to forego the experience entirely if they had to maintain a subscription at any cost. What makes Facebook attractive to investors? 400 million eyeballs.
It's safe to assume Facebook picked 30 percent--60 million--because they knew they were safe. Now they've done us all a favor. They've given the people what they want. They'll play their hits, not just the album cuts they're trying to promote. And maybe we'll cut them some slack about the new look and feel...
The turnout was three tenths of one percent. Not even Nielsen's activist one percent turned out. This is a troubling item for Facebook's leadership.

They're Quite Aware of What They're Going Through

So, Facebook regains some legitimacy, acts like a partner instead of a distant corporation and prepares to do battle with one of its own. This is a fun ride, y'all. Keep kickin'.

Involuntary Engagement

2009-04-18T13:00:00.000-07:00

The Domino's Effect

Any of my coaching clients, marketing prospects or speaking audiences have heard me say this: "If you have a business with customers, you're engaged in social media whether you want to be or not." Of course, if you have a business without customers, you have no business.

For any skeptics or those who find the statement to be ambiguous, please take a moment to review this week's activity on YouTube and Twitter regarding Domino's Pizza. This USA Today article gives a mercifully brief summary of the affair and some fine strategy points: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2009-04-15-kitchen-pr-dominos-pizza_N.htm.

You are not immune.
This week, I had a LinkedIn exchange with a former colleague who now works in the PR department for a major US airport. Within current leadership, there exists some debate on the wisdom of maintaining a social media presence. Within 30 seconds of being alerted this debate existed, I learned that two people at that airport were tired of waiting to board a plane, another thought it was too hot in the shuttle bus and there was a ticket counter line in which at least one customer was behaving in a "volatile" fashion.

The next day, we had a spring snowstorm here in Denver. The online rumor mill was alive and well with road closings, snowfall estimates and, yes, postings about planes. Even if the rumors were true, they weren't newsworthy--at this writing, Denver International Airport has announced no flight cancellations associated with the storm--but that doesn't mean people don't attach validity to them, or that all "twits" with large numbers of "followers" care about truth before "retweeting."

All of us are now a click away from providing CNN, FoxNews and virtually every other media outlet with filler fodder. Think you can depend on the media to check facts before reporting a story? Think again. If it ever actually worked like that, it doesn't now. Social media as an entity has never even attempted to act like it wants to bear that burden. We can safely assume it won't in the future. (Want proof? Do a search for "Groups" on Facebook and take a look at some of the garbage passing for "common interests." "Soldiers are not Heroes?" Please.)

Want another example? Thursday night, I met a gentleman who works for Wells Fargo. He wasn't sure if his company was exposed in this regard. Know what I just found at the top of a Twitter stream? This: "Looks like my assumption that #wellsfargo will screw my fiancee out of her severance is probably going to be correct. Any pro bono lawyers?" Let's assume this is an empty threat and that the claim is unfounded. Does that mean that Wells Fargo has no risk, or that it has something to gain by not engaging in this now-public conversation?

The Medium is the Message
Nothing is less accountable or more dangerous than a mob. One of the downsides of social media is its capacity to degenerate into a mob mentality. The message--any message--is bound to find people with a proclivity to pour gasoline on a fire. If it's your fire, you'll want to know immediately.

Perception is reality. Don't let the mob decide how your business is perceived. Form and execute your social media strategy before someone sticks your cheese in his nose and swiftly kicks you where it hurts.

More Debunking...

2009-04-11T11:15:00.000-07:00

A story about my kid
My kids are aspiring actors. This week, the talent agency called and my daughter auditioned for a radio commercial. The agency emailed me the script, we phoned the contact and my little Goofball delivered her lines beautifully. Later that afternoon, three representatives from the Denver-based advertising agency to which our talent agency had referred us would hear I-don't-know-how-many additional auditions. From this pool they will select their favorites for a second round of auditions next week, and bring in the talent fortunate enough to be cast in the part next Friday to actually lay down the audio. For Goofball, this consists of three sentences as part of a single 60-second spot. Then the agency assembles all the elements and goes into post-production...

Certainly, the end client, a Baltimore-based hospital, has assured itself of a quality product that stands a very good chance of gaining approval on first pass and of being well received by the consumer. They've put their faith in reputable consultants and a proven process. Big investment, high accountability, big return.

Conversely, my 20 years as a promotions producer are full of, "You got pipes, you can read, you do the voice over." Need a female voice? Grab the news anchor on her way to the edit bay or see if the lady from PR can do you a solid. This saves time, money, and...er, time and money. Lots. It also provides flexibility, which is especially important in dynamic corporate environments where pricing and messaging points change because the right person changed her mind or because
you have an opportunity to get out in front of a competitor. Re-voice? No problem. Breakeven is exponentially easier to reach. So long as you have the horses in your stable, you can keep running them.

Why is he talking about his kid?
Here's a good article: Five Phases of Social Media Marketing by Janet Lee Johnson: http://socialcomputingjournal.com/viewcolumn.cfm?colid=789. This is an excellent read for anyone trying to make sense of social networks as a marketing vehicle. Johnson's walk through the approach demystifies the medium by applying steps and tactics fundamental not just to marketing planning but to any targeted effort. Whether you're thinking about launching a new product line, acquiring a competitor, hosting an event or finishing your basement, Johnson's phases: Discovery, Strategy, Skills [identification], Execution and Maintenance are solid pillars for any implementation.

Johnson stresses, "that social media marketing is not free." She cites and endorses the $50K figure cited in the BusinessWeek article previously argued in this blog space (http://mikehanbery.blogspot.com/2009/03/swift-kickin-rebuttal-debunking-six.html). Johnson amplifies and clarifies the argument that effective use of the free tools out there (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, blogs, Search Engine Optimization of website) requires expertise, which doesn't come free.

This is true. The time and effort you invest are quantifiable. Training costs money. Bringing in a consultant to execute the plan through phases adds time and money to the process in exchange for better returns on the end product. Why do you hire a bookkeeper? Because you're not an accountant. Why don't you fix your own computer? Because you'd only make it worse (and void the warranty). Why don't you construct your own marketing plan? Because it will be worth what you paid for it, fraught with missed opportunities.

Here's another perspective, courtesy of an April 7, 2009, Financial Times article, "Social Media Puts Fizz into Coke (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3b8b4cf2-230b-11de-9c99-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1)":

Liz Miller, Vice President...at the CMO Council...warns that in such a nascent
market there remains a risk of being sold snake oil. "Please don't ever hire
a Twitter consultant," [says Miller].

Get to the point, Mike.
Do you need to be an expert in social media to use it to your advantage? No. Should you get some help?

In the marketplace of ideas, barriers to entry are thankfully low. Experts are not always swimming in the same pond. Some social media marketing experts are working to establish a price point--$50,000--for social media marketing consulting. Now, I'll be more than happy to work for that figure but I don't think my audience has it to invest. For most of the people I see at networking events, who have sat at my kitchen table on Saturday sipping coffee, who delicately walk the line between deliberate pursuit of business growth and alienating friends with the "hard sell," and who invite me to speak to their groups about the social media phenomenon, $50K is a huge chunk of their annual revenue figure, and may well be equivalent to the annual salary an entrepreneur affords herself.

The $50K price point creates a false barrier to entry for small and emerging businesses in an area that provides outstanding opportunities for collaboration, brand recognition, market development and leads generation.

Social media strategies are not an area where absolutes are safely applicable. If you have the resources to take weeks to employ multiple levels of agencies for a single radio spot, you may well benefit from $50K worth of consultants to research, launch and maintain your social media program. If you don't, there are people out here swiftly kicking to help you for less.

In sum...
Even if you don't have $50K, you can--and should--play in the social media sandbox. As with all other aspects of your business, scale your expectations. If you talk to a Twitter consultant who tells you to expect the same results from a self-managed strategy as you would from a $50K investment, swiftly kick that snake oil salesman to the proverbial curb. Just as there are those of us who write, source, voice and turn out TV and radio spots in hours or days rather than weeks, there are social media strategits willing, able and modeled to work on a smaller scale.

But if you have $50K and decide I'm your man, I'm sure Goofball can help me spend it.

About the Blogger
Mike Hanbery (http://www.linkedin.com/in/mikehanbery) is an Executive MBA with
20 years of experience in marketing and media at the national and local level
for startups to Fortune 500. His company, Hanbery & Hanbery, Inc.
(http://www.hanbery.com) works with small nonprofit and for profit businesses in
accounting, business development and marketing. Mike speaks on, trains, designs
and implements social media strategies and is co-author of the soon to be
released book: Connect and Contribute: Creating a Social Business.

2009-04-05T12:54:00.000-07:00

Twitter: Show Me the Money

Time is money...?
Saying it has "lots of time for experimentation (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,511000,00.html," Twitter will explore and probably offer commercial accounts this year, using a subscription model as a revenue generator
(http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Messaging-and-Collaboration/Twitter-Offering-Commercial-Accounts-For-a-Price-723430/).

Twitter as SaaS
Another or perhaps ancillary potential revenue source for Twitter is its inclusion on the dashboard of CRM giant SalesForce
(http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Enterprise-Applications/Salesforcecom-Puts-Twitter-in-Its-Service-Cloud-351280/).

Giving the Big Dogs a Bone
Microsoft is Facebook's biggest backer and may be the source that fosters cooperation, or at least "coopetition," between the two surging social networks as it recently announced its sponsorship of ExecTweets, which is designed to deliver the microblogs of big dog American execs to the great unwashed (us)
(http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Search-Engines/Microsoft-Now-Sponsoring-Twitter-Enterprise-Site-725461/). While sponsorship is not a revenue stream, this strikes me as a kickin' marketing tactic: Well-timed and presenting directly the value of the service to a vain set of decision-makers who in recent years have probably authorized thousands of dollars on high-priced, low-paid, twenty-something consultants to poke around their companies and deliver reports stating
that everything will turn around if they just communicate better.

What is leads generation worth to you?
Applications like TweetDeck and Twhirl are being used for leads generation but Twitter hasn't figured out exactly how to procure a "finder's fee" for the business deals it helps facilitate. Twitter remains overtly committed to avoid an advertising model. This sets an interesting converse relationship with Facebook, which continues to vow it will not charge for subscriptions but is experimenting with advertising, and shows a bold willingness--determination?--to
participate in what would surely be a large share of a projected $2.4 billion chunk of cash flow in 2009 (http://www.imediaconnection.com/news/22493.asp).

Turn and face the strain.
Just because these networks started out "free" doesn't mean they're going to remain that way. According to your user agreement, they owe you little or nothing and can change the terms at any time. The more social media fits into your marketing and sales strategy, the more important it is to follow these developments and plan for changes.

Twitter and especially ExecTweets will be interesting to follow to see not only how well it takes hold at the corporate CEO level and what happens from there but to watch what happens within the social media industry thereafter. These folks didn't get to where they are by not thinking ahead.

The fact that Microsoft is Facebook's sugar daddy and chief investor in ExecTweets indicates rubber is getting closer to meeting road in the developing...er, relationship...between the two networks. Astute social media users and strategists will be ready for any and all possible changes. That is, to swiftly kick with the current.

About the Blogger
Mike Hanbery (http://www.linkedin.com/in/mikehanbery) is an Executive MBA with 20 years of experience in marketing and media at the national and local level
for startups to Fortune 500. His company, Hanbery & Hanbery, Inc. (http://www.hanbery.com) works with small nonprofit and for profit businesses in
accounting, business development and marketing. Mike speaks on, trains, designs and implements social media strategies and is co-author of the soon to be
released book: Connect and Contribute: Creating a Social Business.

Pining for Profit: Facebook

2009-03-29T00:23:00.000-07:00

Introduction
Facebook is hotter than Phoenix in July, but more users mean larger infrastructure
requirements, which cost money. User interface redesigns cost money. Employees cost
money. When the venture capital runs out, where's the money coming from?

In November, 2008, Facebook made a $500 Million offer to purchase Twitter, which the
latter declined. What fascinates this observer, as he's stated to every group who has
hosted him since, is that this attempted purchase and developing rivalry is between
two companies that (probably) have yet to earn a penny of profit (both are private
entities and do not disclose earnings) or show a model by which they transform the
increasing popularity of social media to a consistent and sustainable revenue stream.

Show Me the Money
A few weeks ago, at http://twitter.com/mikehanbery, I posted a Charles Cooper article
(http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10184856-2.html) about a proposal Facebook has
received, and which has led to a(nother) protest movement within Facebook, wherein
users are voicing displeasure with the notion of paying for the service. As the
article states, with 200 million users, even a $1 per year subscription fee would
provide a kickin' chunk of change. That said, Facebook has promised not to pursue it.
Facebook's revenues are drawn from the ads it wisely places noticeably but relatively
innocuously, on the right side of the page and in peripheral view of the user. Do
they work? The short answer is, historically, no
(http://gawker.com/tech/advertising/facebook-consistently-the-worst-performing-site-24
2234.php). $400 Million is the high end estimate of Facebook's 2008 revenues, $250
Million the low. These figures taken against the 200 million user figure place revenue
per user in the $1.25 to $2.00 range. That's 2 bucks per user...per year. So
Microsoft, Facebook's principal benefactor, values the site at $15 billion? Well, it
wouldn't be the first time they knew something we didn't.

The Facebook demographic is rapidly growing older, which means more purchasing power
for the overall base. Kudos to the site for pursuing an innovative "engagement"
formats for ads, which the New York Times explains in an article today:

Facebook’s approach is to invite advertisers to join in the conversation. New
“engagement” ads ask users to become fans of products and companies — sometimes with the promise of discounts. If a person gives in, that commercial allegiance is then
broadcast to all of the person’s friends on the site
(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/technology/internet/29face.html?_r=1).

What's so very cool about this approach is that it maintains the balance of
unobtrusiveness for the user with indiscreet positioning for the advertiser while emphasizing
interactive Web 2.0 functionality. Working against it is the aforementioned poor
performance record of social networking ads and that the vast majority of social media
content is created by a whopping nine percent of its population
(http://www.useit.com/alertbox/participation_inequality.html). This means that the
range for Facebook's annual revenue per active user is (again, probably) somewhere
between $13.89 and $22.22. Still a small sum, yes, but an indication that the
aforementioned $2/user/year figure may be off by as much or more than one thousand percent, and consequently that Facebook's goals should shift from user acquisition to user engagement, i.e. converting the 90 percent of the inactive or observant population--"lurkers"--to contributors. In fact, given Facebook's probable high level of operational expenses and the large amount of debt it continues to accumulate (http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2009/tc20090326_604141.htm), let's change that "shift from," in the last sentence to "expand to include."

Conclusion
Why does this matter? Because the mighty have fallen and taken a piece of us in the process; just ask anyone with Lehman stock. Facebook can't be a loss leader forever, especially as it operates in the aura of its younger rival, Twitter. What's the solution? Try this on: You are. Your public profile (aka "Page"), your ads, in fact all of your efforts will be successful to the extent that you as a user can bring active users to your network...your Facebook network.

Preview
Kickin' Twitter in the next post. They don't even sell ads and they gotta feed the monkey like the rest of us.

About the Blogger
Mike Hanbery (http://www.linkedin.com/in/mikehanbery) is an Executive MBA with 20
years of experience in marketing and media at the national and local level for
startups to Fortune 500. His company, Hanbery & Hanbery, Inc. (http://www.hanbery.com)
works with small nonprofit and for profit businesses in accounting, business
development and marketing. Mike speaks on, trains, designs and implements social media
strategies and is co-author of a book due in April, 2009: Connect and Contribute:
Creating a Social Business.

Startups: Sense and Social Media

2009-03-21T14:41:00.000-07:00

If you're a small startup with nothing existing in the way of marketing collateral and we meet, it's quite possibly you'll hear this--much of it you already know:

Sense

First, get a website. Go buy your domain name right now (See? You knew that).

Next, consult with a designer on your website. In fact, consult with at least three. If you're a startup who has engaged a marketing consultant/strategist/"swift kicker" and s/he hasn't offered to do this for you, speak to at least two more marketing...people. It's good practice to get at least three bids on just about anything, so take the time to comparison shop. While it's entirely possible that your consultant is recommending a specific vendor for very good reasons, you are completely entitled to know how and why this conclusion was reached for you...unless you're exactly the same as the last guy. You're not. What were the other, "next best" options and what are the differentiators?

There are lots of free and low-cost services available on the 'net that allow you to build your own site. There are also designers that work with these programs that can apply their expertise and pass along the cost savings associated with the simpler program, which may be all you need. If you go with the free stuff, it's going to look like free stuff. This is to say, your site will look either a) like any number of other sites out there that just used the same template or b) terrible because you are not an expert in website design. Especially if your website is a chief portal and absolutely if it is a point of sale, doing it yourself could prove disastrous. And there's this whole SEO thing...if you don't know, ask an expert (see above).

Social Media

Then get yourself a Page, or Public Profile, or whatever they're calling it this week, on Facebook. Why? My favorite (true) story about talking to a startup prospect who was opening a home security business has me going through the above conversation, nearly verbatim, and then telling him that his business needed a Page and a Group on Facebook. Why both?

The Page

My principal value proposition for putting businesses on Facebook Pages is that, "If you are a business with customers, you're engaged with social media whether you want to be or not." Case in point: A prior post of this blog contradicted a BusinessWeek article. I "tagged" the author--figured I'd be open about it--and she responded, including a link to her Twitter page, which of course I dutifully visited. Well, actually it wasn't "duty," it was that even if we disagree, I obviously could learn from this person. But when I got there, I found a page full of nothing but complaints about two things: 1) the weather and 2) a vendor. There were lots of re-tweets and @thisandthats complaining about this vendor. So I really couldn't "follow" her, because I don't have time for that, but the real point is, her vendor was missing out on the conversation...not present in the first person, only in the third. Thus the clarifying sentence of same value proposition, "If you give your customers a place to talk about you, they might give you the opportunity to participate in the conversation."

Someone who says it differently (better? Quite possibly.) is Reid Carr in a March 19, 2009, iMedia article, Build a Social Media Plan That Never Sleeps. "The more accessible you are to your customers than your competitors," Reid says, "the more likely it is that you're going to be a part of your customers' lives." Here's a link to the very kickin' article: http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/22398.asp

The Page is the place to overtly "be" your business. Your brand, your value proposition, your customer interface. I think a majority of Social Media wonks would agree with this.

The Group

I may well be outside the majority of said wonks about the use of a Facebook Group...and I hope this sparks some discussion. My take on sustainable, value-adding, effective, "netiquette"-friendly use of the Group for business is to raise awareness of the need that your product or service fills. So, the home security company would lead discussions on, for example, tips that make your home more secure, e.g. always close your garage door, put your lamps on timers. Don't push your product here, push the need and demonstrate your expertise.

Back to the Prospect

"I'll never do that Facebook stuff," he said. "I spent the last two months observing behaviors in my old company, looking for people I might eventually want to recruit, and everywhere I looked I saw Facebook on people's terminals instead of their work."

Two things here: First, he's right, if you're taking the Which 70's Child Celebrity Are You? quiz on Facebook in the middle of the workday, you're a prime and deserving candidate for unemployment. Second, he just told me, in his objection, exactly why he needed to be on Facebook...because whether it's right, whether we like it or not, that's where the eyeballs are.

And brother, it doesn't cost a dime.

And There's More

Facebook isn't for absolutely everyone but almost every business should research opportunities for, and think hard about, a social media strategy. Components of this strategy include effective time management, driving traffic among your online vehicles and much more. It's too much for a single blog so a partner and I are putting it in a kickin' book you'll read swiftly and use as a resource forever: Connect and Contribute: Creating a Social Business, coming soon. Real soon.

Now, don't wait for C&C to get your website professionally done or to get yourself on Facebook. Go ahead and test the waters, experiment. Don't do anything you wouldn't do in front of your mother and you'll be fine. Then when you have some experience and familiarity with the battlefield, your strategy mapped out and your tactics in place, you'll be kicking serious swift.

Anthropology, Social Media and Old People

2009-03-15T21:25:00.000-07:00

We social media wonks talk a lot of stats anymore. We talk usage and stats, and stats that indicate usage.

We've all heard by this point that Facebook is growing more popular among older people and professionals. Here it is in a cute article by Lev Grossman in Time Magazine last month: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1879169,00.html. Here it is in more traditional reporting style by Sharon Gaudin of ComputerWorld last Friday: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9129652&intsrc=news_ts_head. As one would guess, young people hate it when old people show up at the party because now you have to act like you can hold your liquor. I thought blogging whippersnapper Josh Visser summed up the chagrin pretty well here: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090313/facebook_bore_090315/20090315?hub=TopStories.

There's more. Is Facebook going to kill email? Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE52A6E420090311 says that's the trend. Small wonder, given all the functionality and instantaneous feedback Facebook offers and the fact that our love/hate relationship with email has been gaining steam for years.

Now, this isn't happening tomorrow. I recently attended a webinar hosted by Compendium's Chris Baggot wherein he showed compelling statistics that search and email remain, by far, the two largest components of web use. And for what it's worth I don't think email disappears, I just think it changes. How it might change is probably good fodder for a future blog post (note to self...).

Just like Facebook isn't turning into an old folks home tomorrow--but there's no denying the trend. Especially because so many of us old folks are crazy for free networking opportunities and/or out of work right now...and, of course, the first rule of finding a new job is telling everybody that you are looking for a job and reminding them of how wonderful and professional you are...and there's noplace better to do that right now than Facebook.

So a March, 2009, McKinsey Quarterly article http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Organization/Talent/When_job_seekers_invade_Facebook_2317 has had me noodling this in a bit of a different way all weekend. I can understand how it made sense to these young folk that we treacherous elders would camp out on LinkedIn, where we type in acronyms about things that fascinate us, like "ROI" and "CRM," and leave them Facebook to exchange concert reviews and post pictures of keggers and cleavage. "An important question," the article states," is whether the values and codes of conduct specific to the virtual world will come into conflict with real-world values and norms."

OK...what's ruining the ride for the Sigma Chi set is the fact that we old folks actually like each other on a personal level, too, and many of us actively seek more than a transactional relationship with our business partners. I want people to know that, for example, I'm a University of Denver alum and a big Pioneer hockey fan. Great icebreaker material, and the fact is that while I'm serious about my business, I'm not always a real serious person. I can talk about stuff other than work, every now and then I probably will, I want people to know that and the dress code at LinkedIn is too stuffy for all that. Facebook provides both the strangeness of balancing and blending personal and professional...For example, within the past 5 days I've stopped allowing one of my old buddies to post on my "wall" because his stuff is often profane (but always funny, so I'll miss him) and joyfully regained contact with about a dozen old friends and neighbors with whom I'd lost track. If you read the linked articles, you'll see three different references to how we can't maintain stable social relationships with more than 150 people. First, I don't think that takes social media into account; Second, define "stable" and "social" in 2009; Third, OK, yeah, I won't maintain close contact with all these folks but I like knowing that NeebruM is playing this weekend in Missouri, that Tim's kid is out of the hospital and that Diane wants to have coffee next week to discuss business.

Now, those are real-world values and norms. It's normal that I love the fact my friend Chris plays in a jam band, that Tim knows he's connected to a bunch of people who care about his kid and that I love coffee almost as much as I love what I do for a living. We cry out when inappropriate pictures get posted on MySpace or sent around on cell phones because they're inappropriate and often dangerous--contrary to our values, not the "norm." Old people interjecting themselves into young people's stuff because things are inappropriate, dangerous or fun? That's been going on for as long as there have been old people.

Social Media as an industry is in its introduction phase, moving into growth. Making your own social network is pretty darned easy to do...so if you're desperate to post your keggers and cleavage on the internet you'll find a way and a place. And the risk? Pshaw. You're already used to your mom saying, "I told you so..." Didn't cost Michael Phelps anything, right?

The Future of Facebook

2009-03-08T19:45:00.000-07:00

This blog is not sponsored.

Last week, I had a conversation about Facebook for business with two Denver area business activists, one of whom was Todd Morrissette, Vice President of Business Development for Corossol Software. Todd's vision of Facebook as a business tool was so compelling and interesting that I asked him to be interviewed for this blog. Todd responded with a complete article so eloquent that I have decided to publish it here in its entirety. I can get kicked pretty swiftly, myself.

Corossol Software specializes in developing software applications for small and medium size businesses. Corossol's latest product is Centreboard, an online document management solution that assists companies with automating their business processes. Its goal is to provide an enterprise software solution without enterprise software costs. For more information, please visit www.corossolsoftware.com or contact Todd at todd.morrissette@corossolsoftware.com.

It is from this perspective that Todd offers his views about Facebook as a business tool. I hope you find it as kickin' as I do:

Facebook in its current form is a social networking tool. It was not developed for business, but for personal use by individuals. However, as we have seen over and over, tools developed for one group is often used by another. Typically, tools for business have been adopted for personal use such as cellular phones and email. Facebook is having the trend move the other way. Businesses are now trying to determine how to best benefit from the Facebook phenomenon. The reason businesses are adopting Facebook is because, unlike its social networking predecessors such as My Space, Facebook is being used by a larger demographic, not just teenagers. Since Facebook is being accepted by such a diverse group, businesses are taking notice and are trying to see how they can most benefit by adopting the application.

Currently, we are seeing businesses start to use Facebook as a marketing tool to communicate their name and brief descriptions about themselves. This is being done by creating “Fan” pages. Once users become “Fans” of the company’s page, the company can then direct market to those individuals by posting information on the page or sending emails to the individuals. In order to take it a step further, companies can create groups for people to join. Groups allow companies to find “like minded” people and then direct market to them. Here is an example of an organization using a group to its advantage:

A company that prepares tax returns for individuals creates a group called “Doing Taxes Stinks”. Several people may join this group for many reasons, such as they agree, they think it’s funny, or perhaps because a friend joined. The group starts to grow and grow using the 6 degrees of separation theory. Soon the group is over 200 strong. Now the tax company has the names of 200 users who think doing taxes is not fun and they can now market directly to these users through the group page.

More importantly is where the future of Facebook will take us. Facebook is already making changes to fit the needs of businesses by trying to outline how a business can create a Fan page or Groups.

I believe Facebook will eventually become a collaboration tool businesses can use to bring people in remote locations together- virtually. Businesses will be able to create “internal groups” where project team members can provide status updates, schedule meetings (events), post messages to the team and post documents to be shared by the team. This will be an application a business can easily introduce to their employees because their employees are already familiar with the tool. Furthermore, their users enjoy going to Facebook and do it frequently. Employees will not be as reluctant to adapt to the change and the application will be accepted more.

Once again we are seeing how the internet is providing a change to how we do business. With the new social networking websites, individuals are able to communicate with one another like never before. Communication is frequently listed as a major issue in companies, by both employees and management. Facebook, as well as other social networking websites, offers another option for people to communicate. Today, Facebook users are able to share their thoughts and communicate easily to masses. Likewise, users are able to filter who they want to hear from. In the near future, the same will be done within organizations who seek creative solutions to their historical issues.

Swift Kickin' Rebuttal: "Debunking Six Social Media Myths"

2009-03-01T14:35:00.000-08:00

Prologue

The title and tone change now, because I decide these things. This blog is not sponsored (more's the pity).

Swift Kickin' Intro

This week: A return to Social Media. I'm a little fired up thanks to reading an article, "Debunking Six Social Media Myths" by B.L. Ochman, BusinessWeek, February 19, 2009, http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/feb2009/tc20090218_335887.htm.

I thought about simply Tweeting this article, just to gain an honest reaction, but upon a second read I've decided I think it may discount small business entirely. I love discounts but hate being discounted. Therefore, I think it deserves a swift kick. Here 'tis.

Ochman's Myth #1: "Social media is cheap, if not free."

Summary: The tools are free but you need $50K to use them effectively.

Rebuttal: See Ochman's Myth #3, below, wherein she states of her own experience, "...with not one dollar spent on advertising, we were able to generate...traffic in our first three days..." Ochman's success speaks to the importance of having a clear strategy in regard to use of and participation in the medium, which is true regardless of milieu.

Most small businesses don't have $50K for any single marketing plan component. Goals, strategies and expectations must take this into account. Accounts and useage of Facebook, Linked In, Blogspot and Twitter cost zero dollars. Double that to add a Facebook Page and a Group to stimulate needs awareness. Total cash flow? Zero.

Ochman's Myth #2: "Anyone can do it."

Summary: Very few "experts" have proven track records, and examples of failures abound.
Rebuttal: The medium is dynamic, changing right now, as you read this. Did you see that? It just changed again. My favorite failure: Do a Google search for "rahodeb," and read the sad story of John Mackey. Burger King's "unfriending" Facebook promotion was a bomb...but they tried. If you're not in business to take risks, get out of business. If you're using social media to manipulate and deceive, get out of business.

"Track record" depends on differing goals of differing initiatives. In the most quantitative sense, establishing one remains nebulous vis-a-vis social media (see Ochman's Myth #6, below).

The tools are painfully easy to use. For those with the ability to read plain English, instructional knowledge is a Google search away. Are you more comfortable with a trainer? Here's an upcoming bargain in the Denver area: http://www.denverdataman.com/content/march-social-networking-seminar-series. Still can't do it after all that? Um...maybe you're not "anyone."

Ochman's Myth #3: "You can make a big splash in a short time."

Summary: Unless you already have a large market presence, gaining large awareness using social media is going to take a while, if it ever happens.

Rebuttal: You can engage in line with your brand. My friends at Experience Pros (http://www.experiencepros.com/) have taken to this stuff like fish to water, and the fact that they haven't been targeted for acquisition or elimination by a Madison Avenue agency factors not one iota into their evaluation of social media.

Not all "big splashes" are national. You can raise awareness within a particular demographic or geographic community. Say, for example, the one in which you do business...

Ochman's Myth #4: "You can do it all in-house."

Summary: Few in-house teams have the full gamut of experience to incorporate social media into a full-fledged marketing campaign, and to manage it effectively thereafter.

Rebuttal: If you're a small business, you or your brother-in-law is probably the in-house marketing team, so...OK she's right on "all," but you can get started and experiment. You can build a Facebook Page. You can put a profile on Meetup.com and join groups that can help you network appropriately. You are intelligent and savvy enough to do this. You got a business of the ground, didn't you? This is a walk in the park, comparatively. Small businesses shouldn't
do anything "all in-house" except for those few, core things they do best. Where's a great place to find, communicate with and evaluate potential partners? Social media.

Ochman's Myth #5: "If you do something great, people will find it."

Summary: You need to drive traffic to your social media efforts in order to get people to notice them.

Rebuttal: Is Ochman's underlying assumption that your use of a social network is an end of itself? I don't know. One of the appeals of existing social networks is the ability they provide to promote something wonderful you've done...your shop, product or service, for example. No marketing tactic stands effectively on its own. Here, right out of Facebook for Dummies, are some ways to drive traffic to your social media site...stop if you've read them before,
pertaining to some other medium or marketing tactic or anything else:

Email people
Talk to people
Put a link on your website
Put a sign in your store
Use the tools available within the social network where you've built your microsite.

If you're not employing these tactics to raise awareness about everything you do anyway, that breeze you keep feeling is your competition passing you.

Ochman's Myth #6: "You can't measure social media marketing results."

Summary: Mentions, comments and click-throughs provide ready measurement criteria.

Rebuttal: You tell me how mentions and click-throughs equal sales and I'll recant this whole article. Ochman is measuring use, not results. If, in order to justify the hour or less it takes to build a Facebook Page, for example, you need tangible ROI, then social media will fail your test...today. That said, given the low barrier to entry and easily-reached ancillary goals available, it is inadvisable to wait until all the metrics are figured out to get started. Plant your flag, befriend the natives, become knowledgeable of the customs, participate, gain some "street cred"...and when and if your research reveals YOUR particular path to profit using social media, activate that plan on a battlefield with which you are now familiar.

Swift Kickin' Conclusion

You need an hour, some knowledge and a plan. You don't need $50K. If you're in small business and listening to the social media naysayers, you're getting your..."swift"...kicked.

The Stimulus and Small Business

2009-02-21T22:13:00.000-08:00

This week we will examine the timely topic of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a.k.a. the federal "stimulus" plan, and its opportunities and impact on small business.

Scam Letter Alert
Not surprisingly, the thieves have emerged to prey on the hopeful but nondiligent. A scam letter on counterfeit SBA letterhead is currently making its way around small businesses. It asks for bank and account information (Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/triad/stories/2009/02/16/daily62.html) so that the agency can determine eligibility for a tax rebate. If you receive this letter, contact the Office of the Inspector General Fraud Line at 800-767-0385 or OIGHotline@sba.gov, then please shred and recycle it immediately. Want to really get put off your dinner? See below at the amount of money this type of anticipated activity justifies.

Opportunities
The Stimulus--as I will begrudgingly refer to this bill--provides $730 Million for the Small Business Administration for the purpose of providing "new loans to assist small businesses with meeting debt payments," offering, "higher loan guarantees" and lower fees (http://www.ketv.com/money/18755827/detail.html). Here is a breakdown of the SBA's allotment, courtesy of Infozine:

$375 million for temporary fee reductions or eliminations on SBA loans and increased SBA guaranteed shares, up to 90 percent for certain loans
$255 million for a new loan program to help small businesses meet existing debt payments
$30 million for expanding SBA’s Microloan program, enough to finance up to $50 million in new lending and $24 million in technical assistance grants to microlenders
$20 million for technology systems to streamline SBA’s lending and oversight processes
$15 million for expanding SBA’s Surety Bond Guarantee program$25 million for staffing up to meet demands for new programs
$10 million for the Office of Inspector General

(Source: http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/34149/)

Much of the additional spending is for infrastructure and government facility modernization. Small businesses who deal directly with, or support firms who sell to, the federal government have optimistic outlooks. Similarly, there will be opportunities at the state level,especially for businesses who qualify as a Minority Owned Business, Woman Owned Business or Disadvantaged Business. If you have previously dismissed or are at present conflicted about the considerable time, effort and hundreds of dollars required to become a certified MBE, WBE or DBE, there may be no better time or motivator than this Act, right now.

For Colorado small businesses, here is a document that explains certifications and the process:
http://www.dot.state.co.us/EEO/CERTIFICATION/linkedFiles/CDOT_CertificationRoadMap.pdf.

Complaints

The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/business/smallbusiness/20sbiz.html?ref=business) reports,"a little detective work is needed to reap the full benefits of the law." And to understand whether or not you benefit. Businesses can deduct $250,000 for capital expenditures, for example, but only if they are profitable. Similarly, the bill allows a 50 percent bonus deduction on capital investments made in 2008 or 2009 that normally would be deducted over many years, but if you're not making money, you're probably not purchasing.

The bill provides for companies to use losses from 2008 to offset profits in any full year that two to six years ago and obtain an immediate refund. This is only for 2008 and for companies with annual revenues of $15 million or less...so, in other words, carrybacks are okay...just like they were before this bill.

Opinion

I recently presented at a University of Denver symposium (http://www.estlow.org/) at which Global Voices co-founder Ethan Zuckerman accepted an Anvil of Freedom award. Mr. Zuckerman spoke of the importance of remaining active and diligent in pursuit of facts. When a student asked "Why should we care?" Mr. Zuckerman responded, "Because awful things happen in the shadows."

According to SpeedReadingBlogger (http://www.speedreadingblogger.com/tag/stimulus-bill/), the average person reads 200 words per minute. There are 207,421 words in the stimulus bill. That's 17 hours and 17 minutes; longer if you need to go to the bathroom or blink.

No one in Congress read the whole bill. Why it couldn't be chunked out like all other political agendas? Is this administration using "the politics of fear," which candidate Obama quite rightly condemned, as leverage to promote an ideological agenda? Is it irresponsible to vote "yes" on a bill you haven't read, and does the unprecedented magnitude of expense this bill proportionately increase the darkness of the deed?

Conclusion

Please find and take advantage of the opportunities in the stimulus package. And please hold accountable yourself, your partners and your government. Know that this bill is full of shadows.

Resources for The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act:

http://www.recovery.gov/

http://readthestimulus.org/

Full Text of the Bill http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1enr.pdf

Obama's Plan: Where's Your Opportunity, Part IV

2009-02-16T12:22:00.000-08:00

"Universal Retirement Savings"

Continuing in our analysis and treatment of The Plan by Rahm Emanuel and Bruce Reed:

Prologue
This installment is privileged with the expertise of Jordan Curry, Financial Representative for Northwestern Mutual. The author of this blog wishes the reader to know that the blog is not sponsored by Northwestern Mutual or any other entity.

Background on Subject Matter Expert
Mr. Curry, an alumnus of Arizona State University's Carey School of Business, serves as Chair for the Board of Directors for a Denver-based travel company and actively supports multiple nonprofits, including Save Our Youth, the Pat Tillman Leadership Through Action Program and the Business School Council. He is a member of Denver Young Professionals and the Financial Planner Alliance. Mr. Curry can be reached via email Jordan.Curry@nmfn.com, or his website http://jordancurry.nmfn.com/.

Summary
With "Universal Retirement Savings," The Plan seeks to address the convergence of increasing "demands on...nest eggs" and our aging population; the decline in available pension plans and low percentage of retirement savings; and the wealth gap, by reforming the "complicated" tax code and "alphabet soup" of retirement savings plans and raising the minimum wage.

This installment acknowledges and summarizes the entirety of the initiative as stated in The Plan, but analysis focuses primarily on a single aspect having the greatest potential impact to small business: The 401 (k) requirement. In previous installments, this blog has sought to identify opportunity areas for small businesses in order to empower its readers with advantageous positions on the change curve. While it is the sincere hope of the author that reaction and discussion uncover ideas of that nature, this installment would be incomplete without addressing economic realities past and present and the considerable risks that also accompany this proposal.

To preserve context, the summary provided by the authors is restated
here in its entirety:

From now on, every job ought to come with a 401(k). An aging society cannot afford to keep saving less and risking more. We need new means to create wealth, based on the needs and responsibilties of twenty-first-century employees and employers. Employers should be required to offer 401(K)'s, and workers will be enrolled unless they choose otherwise. If they switch jobs, they can take these accounts with them. When their paycheck goes up, so will their savings. Instead of a workforce in which only half the workers have retirement savings plans, every American will have one.

"More Ownership and More Security"
One stark change since the book's publication in 2006 is a position reversal on the consequences of debt. The Plan criticizes President George W. Bush for, "dig[ging] the country still deeper into debt--an unlikely way to strengthen the nation's long-term finances," and for having "a political vision, not a practical one." In 2009, the "stimulus" plan for which President Obama has been pressing is funded by unfathomable debt and is peppered with political objectives.*

Another is public perception of the 401(k) as a dependable source of retirement income. According to a February 12, 2009, US News and World Report article (http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/retirement/2009/02/12/how-did-your-401k-really-stack-up-in-2008.html), in 2008, the average American employee lost 14 percent of her retirement savings--a $19,000 drop in average account balance.

"Americans aren't savers," says Curry. "The savings rate has historically been negative. That's a large part of the current credit crisis, and it's a result of fiscal mismanagement. Most people look at their paycheck and see a chunk of it sent to Uncle Sam for Social Security, but the reality is that personal savings is a very large part of life after retirement."

The Plan agrees: "71 million Americans work for an employer that doesn't offer a retirement plan, and another 17 million who could take part in an employer plan don't. More than half of all households have no retirement savings beyond social security." First, why don't those 17 million engage?

According to The Plan, its because "the burden of navigating and managing" plans and the sheer number of them is too bewildering. Curry disagrees, offering that having a menu of options
for savings and investment is a result of market demand for specialized services. "Problems arise," Curry offers, "when individuals aren't educated or diligent in learning about, or
managing, their retirement funds," which he admits is the realm of the professional financial advisor. "As you age, your investment portfolio should rebalance. Much of our problem right now is that this hasn't happened; people have portfolios that are in the wrong risk area."
Curry calls attention to The Plan's educational designs (previously discussed in this blog), offering that finance as a pre-college core curriculum item would provide substantial opportunity for long-term economic stability for individuals, business and the nation as a whole.

"A 401(k) with Every Job"
The Plan's proposal is to:

[R]equire all employers to offer workers a pension or 401(k), and expect all workers to contribute unless they make an affirmative step to opt out...[E]very employee would automatically be enrolled in the employer's 401(k), with the choice to opt out at any time. If employees switch jobs, they could take their account with them to a new employer. Employers could enroll each worker in their own plan, or in a state-sponsored retirement plan similar to the Thrift Savings Plan [Author's note: The TSP is currently available only to military and federal government personnel (www.tsp.gov).]

The current Obama position, available on the White House website (http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/seniors_and_social_security/)
states:

The Obama-Biden retirement security plan will automatically enroll workers in a
workplace pension plan. Under their plan, employers who do not currently offer a
retirement plan will be required to enroll their employees in a direct-deposit IRA account that is compatible with existing direct-deposit payroll systems. Employees may opt-out if they choose. Experts estimate that this program will increase the savings participation rate for low and middle-income workers from its current 15 percent level to around 80 percent.

The Obama administration also plans to "ensure that all employees who have company pensions receive detailed annual disclosures about their pension fund's investments" by requiring "full disclosure of company pension investments." The Plan calls for similar transparency, and even assigns agency responsibility for enforcement. Neither Obama's position statement nor The Plan make provisions for the size of a company relative to these requirements, nor do they provide for the specifics for creating a state-sponsored savings plan accessible by the private sector.

Opportunity and Risk Areas
The populist motives are clear, but questions and concerns abound for small businesses:

Will the requirement to provide a retirement plan raise barriers to entry for my competitors?
Will this requirement require me to employ fewer people? Or decrease
wages? Will it limit my ability to expand?
Will transparency in reporting requirements increase my payroll and overhead costs, and by how much?
Into what actual quantitative and qualitative changes to business operations do these changes translate?
In the market for talent, this change presents opportunity. Where? How can we seize this change for competitive advantage?

Conclusion
Curry's final observation on the topic is reflective of the fact that such a large majority of Americans are employed by small- to medium-sized businesses. He states, "These owners create the wealth in our society. Raising the minimum wage doesn't promote economic growth,
but economy is just one element of society." Similarly, the challenges posed for small businesses by this administration's agenda will probably provoke a reaction of discomfort and resistance.

It is this blog's hope that its readers will emerge as educated opinion leaders, with solutions at the ready.

*According to the Wall Street Journal, $500 Billion of the $6.2 Trillion Weatherization Assistance Program is for beaureaucratic "expenses;" there's $6 Trillion to help General Services Administration buildings go green; and there's even money for yacht repair (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123379617394050229.html). The Christian Science Monitor says $300 Million has been set aside for what might be golf carts (http://features.csmonitor.com/economyrebuild/2009/02/14/my-five-favorite-things-in-the-stimulus-bill/). In fairness and if you haven't heard, they did take out the condoms (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18066.html).

Obama's Plan: Checkpoint I

2009-02-07T23:15:00.000-08:00

Summary
Next week this space will return to The Plan by Rahm Emanuel and Bruce Reed to examine its call for “Universal Retirement Savings.” Our expert guest will be Jordan Curry of Northwestern Mutual.

Certain junctures seem to lend themselves to checkpoints. In this case, Mr. Curry needed to borrow my copy of the book and the expert I engaged regarding The Plan’s pre-college educational aspects is unable to meet my timeline. So, we will adjust our sails.

As the previous installment alluded to changes since the book’s publication, this one compares and contrasts The Plan’s 2006 goal of “Universal College Access,” with the current educational agenda espoused by the Obama administration.

We will see that, in sum and especially regarding educational policy, Obama’s current agenda and The Plan’s are virtually identical. This lends merit to our examination of The Plan as a worthwhile pursuit.

Disclaimer?
What concrete indicators show this administration's commitment behind its rhetoric? In just under 3 weeks, President Obama has removed the ban on stem cell research, directed the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison, bombed Pakistan, picked a fight with China, assigned and dispatched 2 heavily-credentialed envoys to the Middle East, addressed children’s healthcare and pay inequality in the workplace and is on the verge of delivering an economic stimulus package few can comprehend in size or scope. This is not a complete list of the administration’s documented initiatives or actions. The pace is blistering and intense.

A February 7, 2009, Detroit Free Press article (http://www.freep.com/article/20090207/NEWS15/90207027/1285/Stimulus+compromise+cuts+education+spending) notes that much of the reductions in the stimulus package were from spending marked for education, so by the time this article posts we may have a reaction to that item from the administration. However, a February 7, 2009, opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123396676711659061.html) suggests, convincingly, that much of these educational funds were politically--not economically--motivated and offers a lesson on why Americans should fear a filibuster-proof majority by either party. Politically savvy and pragmatic, Obama will probably not choose this moment to stake his claim on education.

Checkpoint
When Barack Obama and Joe Biden were among those apparently hopeful of finishing second in the nominating process to Hillary Clinton, the former offered these words on November 7, 2007, to a group in Bettendorf, Iowa, that may have well marked the beginning of his surge:

It...means putting a college education within reach of every American...I'll
create a new and fully refundable tax credit worth $4,000 for tuition and fees
every year, which will cover two-thirds of the tuition at the average public
college or university. I'll also simplify the financial aid application process
so that we don't have a million students who aren't applying for aid because
it's too difficult. I will start by eliminating the current student aid form
altogether - we'll use tax data instead. And I'll tap the tremendous resource of
community colleges, which educate half the undergraduates in this country, by
creating a new Community College Partnership Program. We'll help schools
determine what skills and technical education are needed to help local industry;
we'll expand new degrees for emerging fields; and we'll reward schools that
graduate more students. (http://www.barackobama.com/2007/11/07/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_31.php)

As a review of last week’s post will confirm, most of this is a “copy and paste” from The Plan. These words are reinforced in Obama’s current public policy statements, as he promises to create, “a new American Opportunity Tax Credit:”

This universal and fully refundable credit will ensure that the first $4,000 of
a college education is completely free for most Americans, and will cover
two-thirds the cost of tuition at the average public college or university and
make community college tuition completely free for most students. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/education/)

Harkening back to, and perhaps an adjustment on, The Plan’s call for “Universal Citizen Service,” the Obama policy statement also states that, “Recipients of the credit will be required to conduct 100 hours of community service.” The statement also promises to heed The Plan’s call for adjustments to the financial aid process, by:

eliminating the current federal financial aid application and enabling
families to apply simply by checking a box on their tax form, authorizing their
tax information to be used, and eliminating the need for a separate application.

Conclusion
While maintaining positions on unaddressed matters 3 weeks into a Presidency is unremarkable, the completeness of the transference of The Plan’s proposals through a full year of campaigning and into White House policy statements may indicate a high level of commitment and elevated intent to execute.

Future checkpoints on this subject will examine the data behind the proposals and the identity and role of key implementors.

Obama's Plan: Where's Your Opportunity? Part III

2009-02-02T20:48:00.000-08:00

Continuing in our analysis and treatment of The Plan by Rahm Emanuel and Bruce Reed:

Prologue
This installment is privileged with the expertise of Rhonda Sinnema and Jennifer Marshall of College Assistance Plus (http://www.caplusdenver.com/). The author of this blog wishes the reader to know that the blog is not sponsored, by CA Plus or any other entity.

Background on Subject Matter Experts Experts
CA Plus gives students and their families guidance and direction in choosing a college, comparing financial aid packages, and accepting offers to attend. They work with families and prospective collegians to develop strategies to maximize financial aid. CA Plus clients leave schools of their choice with degrees…not debt. Mrs. Sinnema is the Owner of CA Plus Denver; Miss Marshall serves the firm as Director of Education.

Summary
With “Universal College Access,” The Plan seeks to make college available to those who want to go but can’t (“The main reason young people don’t go to college—or don’t finish—is cost.”); the “achievement gap,” i.e. holding colleges accountable for student dropout rates; to “provide lifelong training” for “any worker at any age…at an accredited institution;” and “to strengthen and reform our system of public education in elementary and secondary school,” the latter of which is identified as, “the weakest link in our educational system.”

This installment will acknowledge and summarize the entirety of the initiative as stated in The Plan, but analysis will focus only on the collegiate aspect. To preserve context, the summary provided by the authors is restated here, in its entirety:

We must make a college degree as universal as a high school diploma. More than ever, America’s success depends on what we can learn. We have an education system built in the last century, with a school year left over from the century before that. In this new era, college will be the greatest engine of opportunity for our society and our economy. Just as Abraham Lincoln gave land grants to endow our great public universities, we will give the states tuition grants to make college free for those willing to work, serve, and excel.

“Closing the College Gap”
Here we find a jarring reminder of what has changed since The Plan was published in 2006 as the authors show disdain for the practice of “subsidizing banks;” perhaps ironically preceding the prediction, “In the years to come, with the strength of our economy on the line, going to college will itself be a form of national service.”

The authors propose, first:
[To] simplify the tax code by replacing the five major existing education tax incentives—the Hope Scholarship, the Lifetime Learning Credit, the deduction for higher-education expenses, the exclusion of employer-provided education benefits, and the exclusion for qualified tuition reductions—with a single $3,000-a-year refundable credit for four years of college and two years of graduate school.

Second, The Plan states we should, “pass a truth-in-tuition law that requires colleges to set multiyear tuition and fee levels so that those in each incoming freshman class know in advance exactly what their degree will cost them.”

Finally and “most important,” the authors propose to, “provide Tuition Grants to states,” so they can, “offer free or low-cost tuition to students who work their way through school, excel in class, or commit to careers in critical professions.”

Other Components
To “hold colleges accountable for producing more graduates,” i.e. increasing graduation rates, The Plan prescribes the US adopt “the accountability system in Britain, which holds back a portion of colleges’ public funding until students actually graduate.” In this way The Plan addresses what it calls, “The Other Dropout Problem.”

The Plan also proposes changes to non-collegiate education and non-traditional collegiate education. Sinnema and Marshall agree with The Plan’s assertions that these areas, particularly pre-college education, are in need of immediate improvement. This component will be addressed in a separate and subsequent blog installment.

Relevancy
CA Plus advises that the only significant change to this Plan item in regard to the shift in our economy is that college affordability is even more prevalent an issue. People who saved in a 529 plan or intended to borrow against their house to pay for college now find their house devalued, their ability to borrow diminished and their retirement accounts in decline.

The brunt, say Sinnema and Marshall, is borne by the middle class. Perkins and Stafford Loans along with Pell Grants, the most common forms of financial aid, are awarded based on financial need, typically low end of middle income. Private loans are more difficult to acquire as well: According to http://www.finaid.org/, the number of private lenders facilitating college loans was 60 just last year; now it is 39.

Opportunity Areas
Anyone able to open cash flow opportunities for middle class families will have fast friends. There is a broad chasm of difference between, “How can I help you?” and, “What can I sell you?” Practitioners of the latter have contributed greatly to our current mess, and should not be welcomed in your network. Allow the market to marginalize the dinosaurs seeking transactional relationships learning the wrong lessons from, or ignoring, Enron and Madoff. Transformational, relationship-enriching, “win/win” opportunities can and will be created with increasing frequency. The sun is setting on the day of the one-sided deal.

The Plan does not address how these changes will be implemented. Opportunities exist within implementation, and may avail to entrepreneurial entities proactively seeking implementation avenues.

Regardless, an increased number of college students increases demand for textbooks, and the design, printing, and delivery thereof. Staff—academic, administrative and support--and facilities will need to be expanded. As a number of students and programs will be nontraditional, the number of internet-based programs will increase. The content and structure of curricula will need to be adapted to fit the medium, and a range of technologies will need to be integrated to collegiate systems and maintained. The initiative(s) may also, Sinnema and Marshall argue, increase the perceived selection available, thereby raising demand for options and research.

Of course, these are what occur to a few minds. Input is welcome. Please check in frequently to leave and read comments, and next week for further analysis of The Plan.

Obama's Plan: Where's Your Opportunity? Part II

2009-01-26T10:50:00.000-08:00

Continuing in our analysis of The Plan, by R. Emanuel and B. Reed:

What’s the connection?
This installment does not attempt to debate the merits of, or offer an opinion on, The Plan. Rather, it accepts as reality the intentions and ability of those in power to execute it. An ongoing discussion on feasibility, motivation, or any other aspect of The Plan is most welcome, but beyond the scope of primary blog content. The goal of these installments is to illuminate direction and identify opportunities for small businesses in the changes prescribed by the new leadership in Washington, D.C.

The author of this blog encourages the reader to remain aware of current events but to remember that rarely and only in extreme circumstances do singular events alter the long term policy intentions of a Presidential administration. Events such as the recent bombing of sites inside Pakistan and/or the change in policy regarding stem cell research, especially when undertaken in such a nascent Presidency, should be understood to be positioning for the long haul. In short, the actions that dominate daily media reports are means, not ends. The Plan is about ends; this blog will suggest means by which they may be accomplished and opportunity areas created therein.

Background
The "bedrock principle" behind The Plan is, “You do your part, and your government, your company, and your country will do theirs (page 52).” By gaining followers to this principle, the authors hope to achieve a "new social contract for economic growth (p 46)" in America.

The first of The Plan’s tenets is “Universal Citizen Service.” To preserve context, the summary provided by the authors is restated here, in its entirety:

If you forget everything else you read in these pages, please remember this: The Plan starts with you. If your leaders aren’t challenging you to do your part, they aren’t doing theirs. We need a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us by establishing, for the first time, an ethic of universal citizen service. All Americans between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five should be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic civil defense training and community service. This is not a draft—nor is it military. Young people will be trained not as soldiers, but simply as citizens who understand their responsibilities in the event of a natural disaster, an epidemic, or a terrorist attack. Universal citizen service will bring Americans of every background together to make America safer and more united in common national purpose (p. 54).

Emanuel and Reed present two options for implementation, both centered on Americans aged 18 to 25. The first involves the creation of a new program:

[T]he nation will enlist them for three months of civilian service. They’ll be asked to report for basic civil defense training in their state or community, where they will learn what to do in the event of biochemical, nuclear or conventional attack; how to assist others in an evacuation; how to respond when a levee breaks or we’re hit by a natural disaster. These young people will be available to address their communities’ most pressing needs (p 62).

The second option, “for those willing to make a longer commitment,” comes with a prescriped expansion of Americorps (p 62) http://www.americorps.org/.

Opportunities
Even as the US government increases its own responsibility and involvement with the economy and its players, there are limits to what it can accomplish. Successful marketers pose questions such as, “What needs are unmet/underserved?” Another way of looking at this might be to say, “What might be in it for me in supporting this effort?” The answer lies in fulfilling the needs of the client—in this case, your community; your government. They know where they want to go; how can we help them get there?

Needs that private enterprise may offer in the execution include:

Transportation – of youth to and from training centers
Lodging – of participants and facilitators
Facilities – principle and support facilities, i.e. medical, storage
Infrastructure – Where will the training take place? Some communities will require more change and preparation than others.
Diversion – entertainment for participants and facilitators
Training – supplying the subject matter experts, trainers, simulators, materials, etc.

Opportunities may also avail in the follow-through. What, the astute observer asks, happens once the training is finished and these young people return to their communities with this knowledge? How can the community take full advantage?

Ongoing reinforcement and ROI for the community can be realized, and private enterprise can find opportunity, through (for example):

Community meetings on the training - facilitating and moderating discussions on the changing physical and psychological impact the initiative has on the community.
Executing and managing changes to physical and procedural infrastructure that will inevitably result from the training. This will include residential, commercial and municipal areas.
Rewarding these youth for their contribution, and validating their sacrifice.

How can we help to ensure these programs maintain an acceptable level of effectiveness? That conditions remain optimal for learning, retention and re-conveyance? How will a program like this alter this generation, and future generations, in terms of their worldview and stewardship? What will be their outlook and long-term goal for our nation?

What will the answers to these questions reveal for the next level of opportunities? And the next…?

WIFM
Anyone who has been given pause noticing our young people isolate themselves behind their iPod earphones will surely be able to appreciate the initiative to re-engage our youth. “Many aspects of our lives,” The Plan offers, “are simply not the common experiences they once were…Opportunity and responsibility go hand in hand (pp 66-67).”

Perhaps this is the time for which many entrepreneurs have been preparing; a chance to profit fairly while strengthening your community.

Next:
Next week’s installment will focus on “Universal College Access,” and will feature expert input from Jennifer Marshall, Director of Education for College Assistance Plus Denver http://www.collegeassistanceplus.com/.

Obama's Plan: Where's Your Opportunity? Part I

2009-01-20T07:31:00.000-08:00

On this day, January 20, 2008, Barack Obama is inaugurated as President of the United States.

In 2006, Rahm Emanual http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/27/obamas-chief-of-staff-rah_n_138240.html, then a US Congressman from Illinois, penned The Plan: Big Ideas for America (The subtitle has since been altered, and is now “Big Ideas for Change in America.”) www.readtheplan.com with fellow Clinton White House veteran and liberal journalist Bruce Reed http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=191&contentid=3420. The book purports “a new social contract for the twenty-first century (Page xviii)” by way of eight high level directions they prescribe.

Emanuel and Reed split loyalties in the 2008 US Presidential election. Reed worked with Senator Hillary Clinton, penning the debate zinger, “change you can Xerox (
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15314.html).” Emanuel threw his support to fellow Illinoisan Barack Obama and was selected to be the new President’s Chief of Staff immediately upon the conclusion of the campaign. With the appointment of Senator Clinton to lead the State Department and multiple additional Clinton White House veterans to other posts, the split between the authors seems to have been temporary; the shared ideology intact.

As Obama’s actions reinforce his belief in the tenets put forth by Emanuel and Reed, as similarities exist between The Plan and Obama‘s Blueprint for Change booklet, and as he enters office on the wings of a broad mandate, small business owners and entrepreneurs have an opportunity to choose where they operate on the change curve. In a broad sense and at a high level, over the next several weeks this blog will dedicate itself to identifying the opportunities and challenges for these people and their businesses.

Objectivity will be a goal. Experts will be consulted and interviewed. Each topic will be addressed, as will changes that have occurred since publication--most significantly and consistently, the growing financial crisis that, three years ago, only a few had the courage to acknowledge and still fewer to confront.

The prongs of The Plan are:

Universal Citizen Service - “All Americans between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five should be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic civil defense training and community service (P. 54).”
Universal College Access - “[W]e will give the states tuition grants to make college free for those willing to work, serve and excel (P. 55).”
Universal Retirement Savings - “From now on, every job ought to come with a 401(k) (P. 55).”
Universal Children’s Health Care - “[C]ut the cost of health care so that every business can afford it and every child in America can at least get it (P. 55).”
Ending “Corporate Welfare” - The authors' central strategy to fund the aforementioned goals (P. 56).
Tax Reform - Simplify the tax code (P. 138), establish a corporate flat tax of 35 percent (P. 138) and increase the overall tax burden on the wealthy while decreasing it on families earning less than $100,000.00 per year (P. 145).
Winning the War on Terror - “[A]dding to the special forces…expanding the US Army by 100,000 more troops…a new GI Bill (P. 56),” and other reforms.
A New Energy Policy - “[A] sweeping campaign to develop new energy technologies (P. 56)” centered around decreasing dependence on foreign oil by emphasizing hybrid vehicles (P. 167).

Next week’s post will analyze the Universal Citizen Service notion, and suggest its potential impact on small businesses. Eventually, we will explore The Obama/Biden Blueprint for Change, and compare and contrast it with The Plan and current events.

Again, the goal of these explorations will be to identify and illuminate the opportunities for small businesses; to provide an opportunity to ride on the crest of the wave of change.

2009-01-11T16:18:00.000-08:00

With the possible exception of current macroeconomics, the ambiguous and omnipresent “Web 2.0” phenomenon poses perhaps the most currently perplexing quandary for small businesses. Many feel the former pressuring them to develop their presence on the latter. Additional pressure accompanies the uncertainty surrounding the newness of the medium, both in terms of the sheer array of sites and the differences among them. Small business owners, especially--and ironically as they are the ones who stand to benefit most from effective use of the medium--struggle with managing the time requirements. Finally, a universal set of questions is developing but the answer set is different for each participant. Should I blog? Should I Twitter? On which sites should I maintain a profile? How frequently should I update this profile?

This installment offers high level best practices and a look at the differences among some higher profile players.

So, really, what am I to do?
The good news is that for those with resources to invest, there are experts capable of putting you on the cutting edge in short order. And for those who are just scrimping by, a ton of free information is available. A good place to start looking for them is…where else?…the internet…In any event, here’s the high-level summary of what they’re going to (or should) tell you.

First, decide what you want Web 2.0 to do for you. Web 2.0 can eat your time like potato chips so beginning with an clearly defined end in mind is crucial.

Next, research. Learn the differences among the entities. Pick a few that give you access to your audience. Then, learn what features and options each of those offers, and at what cost.

Each entity will revolve around a “profile.” Building a profile for each of them will take time that should be spent selling. I suggest constructing standard content and storing it in a local document file so that you can simply copy and paste. When you update this file, then, repeat the copy and paste procedure. Some adjustments from site to site will be required but this will substantially reduce your startup and maintenance requirements.

Set parameters and self-imposed limitations for the use of the tool. It’s easy to get sucked in…and this indirect selling, while necessary, must take a backseat to direct revenue pursuits. What works for your strategy…Does it benefit you to establish yourself as a “best answers” person on Linked In? If so, budget 15 minutes or so into every other day for Linked In “Q&A.” Do you need to expand your network locally? Make sure you’re checking Meetup.com once or twice a week to see what groups have been started or are scheduling new events in your area. Email updates are available for these two examples…are you the type of person who gains or loses time by shifting notices to email? Set your notification tactics accordingly.

Facebook
As alluded to in the previous post, Social Networking sites are what magazines used to be: There are a few for most anybody and something for everybody. If you’re focused on international business, you’re a Xing person (who also needs a Linked In presence). If you have a consumer product, creating (a profile, and) a (free) Page for your business on Facebook is recommended. What is important to realize about Facebook is that it lends itself to personal social interaction. It is not a realistic expectation to separate your personal life from your professional life on Facebook. Your friends from high school will find you and send you silly messages. Are you any fun? If so, I say play along. In addition to the aforementioned Page opportunity, Facebook offers other business-oriented widgets. For example, I belong to a group on Facebook called “I’m an Entrepreneur.” Periodic updates from this group are often worthwhile.

Twitter
Twitter is a different animal: 140 characters to “Tweet,” which means to answer the question, “What are you doing now?” My advice for those of you who plan to answer this in a social vein (“Mike is doing laundry.”) are best off leaving that to Facebook. I use Twitter to post links to current articles of interest to my target audience and to promote this blog. On Twitter, people and entities “follow” one another. This means that if I am “following” you, every time you “Tweet,” I see it on my Twitter page. So: if I sign on to “follow” you and know more about when you do laundry than how your knowledge and connections can help my business, I will probably follow you for a very brief period.

Verticals
If you’re in TV, film or a related industry, Variety Magazine has a site called, “The Biz.” In essence, if you learn that there’s not a social network set up for your vertical, you might start one. But there’s a ton…Ning (not to be confused with Xing), Biznik, Bizwiki, Naymz (for job seekers), and of course MySpace (which still seems focused on high schoolers)… Again, pick your spots based on the access they grant to your target audience and the achievement of any other goals.

Seize this day.
Should you "Web 2.0?" Yes, definitely. As big companies pull back in the current economic environment, an enormous opportunity is presented for small companies to use these low- to no-cost venues to brand and proliferate their value propositions.

The Web 2.0 Conundrum

2009-01-02T20:51:00.000-08:00

With the possible exception of current macroeconomics, the ambiguous and omnipresent “Web 2.0” phenomenon poses perhaps the most currently perplexing quandary for small businesses. Many feel the former pressuring them to develop their presence on the latter. Additional pressure accompanies the uncertainty surrounding the newness of the medium, both in terms of the sheer array of sites and the differences among them. Small business owners, especially--and ironically as they are the ones who stand to benefit most from effective use of the medium--struggle with managing the time requirements. Finally, a universal set of questions is developing but the answer set is different for each participant. Should I blog? Should I Twitter? On which sites should I maintain a profile? How frequently should I update this profile? And what does SEO stand for anyway?

This installment will address the industry at a high level. Future installments will seek to drill down into the medium: The players, best practices and examples of successes and failures.

What’s in a name?
This medium is simultaneously referred to in a number of ways. “Social Networking” and “Social Media” are two of its monikers; while these do accurately describe the core original purpose, they neither encompass the scope expansion already experienced nor are sufficiently medium-specific. “New Media” is simply too broad and problematic. Despite its ambiguity and because it seems the industry is trending toward using this nomenclature, I will in this and future installments refer to the industry as “Web 2.0.”

Regardless of market or medium, it is paramount to realize that presence without strategy and commitment are counterproductive. As with any medium (and with eternal thanks to Marshall McLuhan)--be it a brochure, radio spot or convention--your Web 2.0 presence is your message. Clarity, consistency and coherence are critical opportunity and risk areas into which we as business owners are compelled. As so much of business management is a search to minimize risk and uncertainty, best practice here is to research and understand the entities and options and choose a strategic path toward specific goals with a realistically manageable set of ongoing tasks…and embrace the notion that “ongoing” is the nature of this beast.

Past and Future
Prior to the proliferation of the internet, the magazine industry was the epitome of a low-risk, easy-profit medium. Cheap to produce and deliver with easily-identifiable and endless niche demographics, print magazines provide low, controllable barriers to entry and exit compared to electronic or daily print media. With the advent of the internet and its inevitable progression to user interactivity, we now observe the consequences of traditional media outlets who failed either to acknowledge or change the disruptive nature of the new medium. As the marginal price, for example, of a classified advertisement quite predictably made its way to zero, the already mature print industry stayed with its model…and now we observe shakedown which will eventually include the most hallowed names in the industry, tragically but perhaps fittingly with a whimper and without mourning. Magazines that have weathered the storm have done so by appealing to audiences of light- or non-users of the internet or by employing the internet and other media as strategic complements or reinforcements.

The primary lesson is that change must be embraced and acted upon, and strategically. Once upon a time a Bachelor’s degree gave a job candidate a significant advantage; now a targeted Master’s degree is a prerequisite for many entry-level positions. Because Web 2.0 is so easily entered and can be maintained at some level with little expertise, ownership within the sphere is a fundamental requirement at present. A secondary lesson is that, anymore, no medium stands alone. Interactivity is increasingly and irreversibly pervasive in all aspects of our lives.

The aspect with which I am currently most fascinated, and about which I fail to find consensus among experts, is the development of the industry. You’re about to spend valuable time setting up and maintaining your Web 2.0 presence; you need to know your horse will run for the long haul. Every industry (not just print media) reaches a point of maturity and experiences consolidation and shakeout. What will this look like for Web 2.0? Will the cycle be contracted in the same way the technology progressed? Or will it be extended by the virtually nonexistent barriers to entry and exit? What incremental innovations will prove defining differentiators?

I do think that big companies will be strapped to keep up; that this is a medium that rewards speed and the ability to change--two things larger companies either resist or simply cannot do. For any smaller operators with imitative, substitute or complementary products who can identify the whereabouts of their low-hanging fruit and beat the larger entities on cost, strike now. The iron is hot.

Here’s the “teaser.”
The next installment will begin to address best practices for strategic and tactical startup and maintenance. Until then, I recommend small business owners look into LinkedIn, Facebook and Meetup.com.

Get your message out!