Broadcasting Promises: The Pursuit Of Viral Exposure

Many companies adopting social media have at least one or two executives and managers who dream of one thing: super exposure from social media. They couldn't care less if you like them, their company, or their products.

They might not even care if you make a purchase, because many of them are playing a numbers game. The numbers game was largely born out of direct marketing and, sadly, adopted by many advertising agencies in order to remain competitive. (They thought they had to, in order to prove ROI.)

The general theory is that if a marketer makes 1,000 solicitations, and 100 respond, then the marketer can say with confidence that the campaign led to a 10 percent direct response rate. If you are customer 101, it doesn't matter. If you do buy, then you're a bonus because the marketer can continue to repeat this process over and over again with new lists. The point is: it's anti-social.

Direct Response Advertising/Social Media Is Addictive.

Some people are still pretty excited by the Old Spice Guy campaign, enough to add it into their presentations. After initial reports showed some products dropped off, P&G claimed victory with record sales. Many social media experts that I know looked at this as proof that social media works, neglecting the huge direct response and magazine ad coupon campaign that accompanied the viral video. (The Old Spice Guy didn't play so well in print, by the way.)

"Who cares," some say. "Overall sales for Old Spice body wash rose 105 percent for that period!"

That's what makes the Old Spice Guy viral video campaign concept compelling and addictive. But let's be honest. It was especially clever, but it wasn't social. It might not even be sustainable.

After the newest installment on Facebook featuring Ray Lewis, fans aren't clamoring for Old Spice. They want more Isaiah Mustafa commercials, whether or not they buy the product. So who did that direct response campaign brand? Old Spice or Mustafa?

And, did it successfully change the lingering perception that Old Spice is for old people? I asked my son. He said some of his friends made fun of Old Spice just yesterday. But that's nothing compared to what some companies do. At least P&G is trying (and in come cases innovating) social media. Some companies just piss people off.

Delivering A Brand Promise Is Not Enough.

When companies adopt social media as a mere communication channel, the people behind the program fool themselves into thinking that numbers are everything. Ergo, the more people who hear the brand promise will mean more people will buy the product. But there is an inherent problem with this thinking.

Social media, on the whole, is an environment. And just like any environment, all three topics — promise, delivery, and proof — are fair game for discussion. Generally, after brand promise buzz dies down, customers and consumers stop talking about the brand promise and start talking about product delivery (and the consequence of delivery) and proof of delivery.

So, if the company delivers on the promise and provides proof it delivered, broadcast might be enough. But most companies don't deliver on the promise.* So instead, they play a different numbers game even if they don't know it.

Compounding Can Work Against Marketers Too.

If a marketer makes 1,000 solicitations, 100 are put off, and 100 respond (and 50 feel cheated), the marketer is contributing to a problem that won't materialize for months. But eventually, it will materialize. As the 100 who are put off and 50 who feel cheated (with every cycle) begin to share their stories, they will eventually outpace the company's broadcast efforts.

What does that mean? Sooner or later, the marketer will make 1,000 solicitations only to find 900 of those are wasted because those 900 already received an anti-brand promise message from 100 people put off and 50 who feel cheated (times the number of cycles). Of course, some companies are so arrogant that they will blame the messaging and not their own operations. So, it will go on and on until they eventually die or are bought up.

Delta is providing a great example of this right now. After a big splash to sell offsite and driving people to its Facebook page, it is painfully clear that Delta has adopted a broadcast-only tactic.

The Delta wall is riddled with unanswered complaints. The pace is eclipsing Delta broadcasts by more than 100-to-1. Delta obviously has a delivery challenge, which is compounded by a lack of social proof (they don't deliver and don't make good when they don't). As the numbers grow in the opposite direction, Delta will eventually find that no one will believe their brand promises anymore, except a few wing nuts who are heavily invested with millions of frequent flyer miles.

What Is The Solution?

The best solution is to adopt a social media program that can communicate the promise truthfully (advertising), engage with customer service (marketing), and provide proof (public relations) that something is being done. And, if the company is still unable to deliver, it could lower the expectation or improve the delivery.

Customers are very adaptable to lower expectations. People who buy a Yugo don't expect Porsche performance.

Airlines, for whatever reason, are prone to overpromise. They promise to get you to your destination safely and roughly on time, with your bags, after a reasonably comfortable flight, for the best possible price (sometimes lowest). And if they don't, they have passenger service agents who can help. The reality is that the only promise they can keep is price and lately (with all the add-on fees), they can't even do that.

There is another solution, of course. The broadcast-only model works if you stay away from the numbers game and target the right people. Inevitably, some people will like a specific product no matter what. In the 1970s, people bought pet rocks.

Some people think that the pet rock product was a numbers game. It wasn't. The initial campaign was targeted to people who would find it so stupid that it was a novelty. Its popularity among a certain segment pushed it toward mainstream popularity for about six months. Of course, this product wasn't sustainable. Most companies want to be sustainable.

*I don't believe most companies intentionally break promises or try to cheat people. There are dozens of reasons they break brand promises, but that will have to wait for another day. It's a complex subject, especially among bigger companies.

Reinventing Brands: Does Social Media Change Companies?

Jonathan Salem Baskin has an interesting theory about social media. He thinks tools like Twitter aren't some dream of customer empowerment, but rather the nightmare reality of the broken relationships between consumers and brands.

"Responding to online complaints is a tax that companies pay because of the chronic mismatch between what consumers expect from brands and what they ultimately get," he wrote for Ad Age. "An individualized response might momentarily bridge the gap, but it won't fix it. Never will."

His overall theory is that social media is similar to a penalty levied by consumers. It might be partly true, but it depends on the company. It depends on the relationship. It depends on the intent of the communication.

A Quick Brush-Up On Branding And Communication.

The secret of branding isn't found in advertising, marketing, or public relations. It's found in a promise and the ability to effectively communicate a promise, deliver on that promise, and prove the promise was delivered.

This is what all customers base their relationships upon, with all of it being underpinned by communication. Consumers do too, except they base their beliefs on nothing more than their perception.

Communication is powerful for companies in its ability to present the brand promise (advertising), establish transaction guidelines (marketing), and reinforce that the promise was met (public relations). It was that simple, multiplied out by how many people the company could reach.

And then came social media. Consumers could suddenly reach as many people as companies (often more) in a space where the companies weren't communicating (leaving unanswered untruths looking like truths). That presented a problem for some companies because those companies could no longer contain distractors like they did the media* (in some cases) and the Internet provided a wealth of new alternative products and services.

*Side note: media tended to be much more limited in its scope, preferring to promote promises, report on broken promises, and occasionally undertake investigative assignments that revealed delivery flaws or uncovered consequences associated with delivering on a promise (e.g., sweat shops in foreign countries). Most, but not all, tried to remain true.

Social Media Doesn't Change All Brands; Just A Lucky Few.

When many companies adopt social media, they generally focus only on one or two communication areas: promise (advertising), customer service (marketing), and proof (public relations). Few focus on all three.

The net result is a flawed strategy much like Baskin says. Many companies act like they are paying a penalty.

However, some companies are different. When they can broadcast the right promise, deliver on the promise, and provide proof that they delivered, social media becomes an opportunity and not an obligation. The opportunity is that social media provides another environment where companies can adjust the promise, adjust the delivery (or expectation), and share the proof.

In such cases, social media can provide the environment to change the brand, but it's still the people (inside and outside) who shape it. Of course, this only works if the company is open to change (unless they already meet this criteria).

Most companies don't. Many just want you to buy the product and shut up, unless you're convincing other people to buy too.

And that's why I think this topic merits further discussion. So, over the next couple of days, I'll share some insights on what happens when companies only employ advertising, marketing, or public relations in their social media programs as opposed to those companies with a much more integrated approach. I hope you enjoy and join in.

Moving The Cheese: How Post Frames Fail Over Time

When we chose Chris Brogan's post — How To Use A Writing Frame — as a daily fresh content pick (an experiment of sorts), I anticipated having to qualify it in a future weekly recap. Before having the chance, Ike Pigott had already questioned the framing concept.

"I understand WHY Brogan has a recipe for blogging. But it's not really for me. (My purpose is different.) — Pigott

Indeed. Writing frames are not for advanced writers, meaning roughly the top two percent of all writers. Pigott is an advanced writer. He doesn't adhere well to rules. A few of us don't.

Case in point, Valeria Maltoni, also an advanced writer, added a quip after I filled her in on my brief exchange with Pigott.

"PPT has templates... ;)" — Maltoni

Her quip made me chuckle. So I offered to pen a post about a Tweet template. And then, in rethinking it, decided that a Tweet template might work better in 140 characters. So, I offered the following..

"The best tweets have a beginning, middle, end, call to action, link, and plea for RTs."

Some people liked it, even though it was really meant to be a parody of the Brogan post (and advice I read about all the time). Hmmm ... maybe we need to start over.

Why Writing Frames Work.

When we chose the Brogan post, there was a specific intent on a light content day (not many people published, and the value was thin.) The Brogan post stood out because while he was really a conversational reframing of the ADIA (or ADICA) structure, but it is still helpful for novice writers, causal writers, lazy writers, and business writers (people who have to write posts, but don't necessarily have a love for writing).

Basically, a post framework is nothing more than a template. It's your story's outline, pure and simple. And I use similar models in classes because it helps people who will have to write establish a context of what it is they will write. As they get better, we focus on the exact opposite — breaking the rules.

Why Writing Frames Don't Work.

Coincidently, Sean Williams wrote a post yesterday that brushes up against why frameworks don't really work. For people who originally set out to break the rules of communication, social media pros are notorious for creating them. So many posts burn with the promise of ten things that will do this and five things that will do that, it sometimes makes my head hurt (I've added to the madness myself).

But all of us do it sometimes because people are hungry for frameworks. Or, like Williams points out, they want someone to tell them the easiest way to get the cheese. And once someone does get the cheese, they fall into a routine. That's all fine and good, until someone moves the cheese. Then, all those step-by-step experts start to panic. Google Instant is a good example. It sent shock waves through the SEO community, people who have been trying to perfect their routines for years.

And that is why frameworks don't work. When everybody is doing it, it gets boring. And for writers, when every post follows a framework, it becomes monotonous. It could also be the reason, I suppose, few Brogan posts are fresh picks. And Seth Godin has yet to offer up anything better than everybody else.

The Post I Could Have Written.

There is no formula to great writing other than time and sacrifice. By sacrifice, I mean that three-quarters of the way through this post, I thought of a different approach. It could have been a great post, using a Lego analogy. Summed in one sentence, Brogan offered up instructions on how to build what is on the box whereas Pigott and Maltoni are too busy erecting original works that are on display at Legoland.

Of course, in order to write that post, I would have had to sacrifice everything written and start over. But then again, I like this post in that it shares how social media is supposed to work. Brogan presented something, we thought it was valid, Pigott and Maltoni questioned it, I offered clarification, and brought Williams' thoughts into the mix.

Best of all, it also serves up how disagreement nurtures better ideas (for all those who shy away from it) without any drama. Huh. You can't make a framework for that. At least not one that will you get the cheese for any length of time.

Surveying The Public: When People Don't Know

If reality was the same as public perception, we would live in a much scarier world. I might even give up driving all together.

Traffic Perception.

• According to AAA, 52 percent of all surveyed drivers said they feel less safe on the roads now than they did five years ago. The leading reason cited by American drivers was distracted driving, with 88 percent of motorists rating drivers who text and email as a very serious threat to their safety.

• According to State Farm, teens ages 14 to 17 think the chances of getting into an accident are higher when you drink and drive as opposed to text and drive. Sixty- three percent strongly agree they could get into an accident if they text and drive.

• According another AAA announcement, texting by Golden State drivers has nearly doubled since the introduction of a state law 19 months ago. It was designed to prevent distracted driving, but the study said it doubled. It was based on combining three studies.

Traffic Reality.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently released an updated 2009 fatality and injury data report showing that highway deaths fell to the lowest number since 1950 (a 9 percent decline from the year before). The record-breaking decline in traffic fatalities occurred even while estimated vehicle miles increased. Fatalities declined in all categories of vehicles including motorcycles.

There was also a 5 percent decline among people injured. There was a 5.3 percent decline among all accidents, including those with property damage but no injuries.

More recently, the adminstration also released data that suggested distraction-related fatalities represented 16 percent of overall traffic fatalities (the same as 2008). However, there is a bit of a numbers game in play-- 16 percent of less is still less.

The Perceptional Gap.

Traffic safety is important and no one can dispute that distracted driving (especially texting, but also eating or putting on makeup) is stupid and nothing about this post is meant to distract from striving to reduce accidents, and fatalities, even more. To anyone who loses a loved one, numbers don't matter even if the reality is we will never achieve a zero year.

However, the takeaway is that sometimes our perception and reality are different. Specifically, traffic safety is getting better even while the public believes it is getting worse. (While writing this, I recall Ike Pigott made this observation in July.)

There are a number of factors contributing to the perceptional gap. Traffic safety concerns receive two to three times as much coverage as improvements. Local news stations frequently lead with accident recaps. Millions of dollars are spent on fear campaigns every year. And even the administration that announced the "good news" had announced a $13 million ad campaign to target 20 percent of drivers who they say admit to having driven after drinking (just days before).

For communicators, it's always something to keep in mind. Crowd sourcing and surveys are great, but it's the work done after the data has been compiled that makes a real difference. Sometimes statistics lie, but sometimes people who contribute to those statistics lie too. Even if they don't know it.

Engaging Strategic: Fresh Content Project

If I had to pick a percentage out of a hat, I might say 98 percent. Right. As hard as it is to imagine, most communicators (advertisers, marketers, public relations professionals) have no concept of strategic communication or how to differentiate strategies and tactics. Many of them resort to treating strategies as objectives (which is very accurate).

As a fresh pick recap post, I won't bore you with the definitions today. What I will do is share five posts that demonstrate strategic thinking as opposed to the typical tactical execution where most people place their focus. Take a look and enjoy.

Best Fresh Content In Review, Week of September 6

• Case Study: Tyson Foods Hunger Relief.
Geoff Livingston shares some insights and observations on the Tyson Hunger Relief program, which began in 2007. It was among the first corporate programs to expand using social media with a Wordpress blog, which was later augmented by social networks, including Twitter and Facebook. The program stands out for its sense of purpose as each phase was built out over the course of three years. Tyson also took the campaign offline, engaging people at social media events. Smart stuff.

• Crowd Sourcing Means More Work for You, Not Less.
In a guest post by Len Kendall, the Spin Sucks blog establishes some checks and balances to crowd sourcing, including a content calendar (timeline for engagement), visibility, editing submissions, promoting good work (beyond the winners), and establishing a definite end to the program. All of his points are valid and mindful, taking the crowd sourced content of the tactical box and into the strategic box.

• The ROI of Rotary.
In his first guest post on the Social Media Explorer, Ike Pigott tackles the history of social media ROI by using a Rotary analogy and reminding professionals that not every measurement needs to be marked off with a click, like, follow, or even sale. Social media tends to be more fluid, with an understanding that not all measurements are quantifiable. Often, it's the benefits we don't measure that have the most value.

• The Three Dimensions Of Internal Branding.
Another guest post on Social Media Explorer, this time by Heather Rast, hits all the right notes on the topic of internal branding (which is also one of my favorite subjects). Right out of the box, Rast suggests that employers have a tendency to talk in terms of "they" (employees) and "we" (employers), which further diminishes the power of "we" inside every company. After all, if everyone — customers, prospects, and employees — is assigned to the "they" column, it doesn't leave many people on your side. You can read her other great points by reading the post.

• Hope for Better Conversations.
Geoff Livingston and Beth Harte cowrote ten topics they would like to see more discussion about as opposed to the written-to-death social media memes that tend to take up everyone's time (and unfortunately still drive traffic). Among the hot topics that are under covered, they stay, are citizen journalism, government data usage, and culture shifts. They have some solid ideas in what they propose, but as someone who has written about most of their suggestions, I can promise few people will read them. But then again, that is the point, isn't it?

Preparing To Win: Seven Mental Tips For Professionals

After reading the article by Jim Taylor, Ph.D., in Psychology Today, I couldn't help but wonder if his tips for mental preparation for endurance athletes wouldn't somehow translate into business and communication. I think they do.

Seven Mental Tips For Business Professionals.

1. Endurance. In business, passion tends to dissipate while working on a long-haul project. You can remain passionate if you avoid short-term sprints and continually freshen the project with new people (readers and colleagues) and ideas (from anywhere).

2. Preparation. While many business leaders consider research (and measurement) the heaviest lifting, it's essential to creating better products or crafting better messages. You also have to understand the outcomes and adjust.

3. Contingency. While intuition can help leaders turn companies and industries in a dramatic direction, the better course is a solid strategy with contingency models that allow for spontaneity at key points during a project.

4. Fulfillment. Intrinsic motivation (cash rewards or fame) doesn't hold as much value as some people think. It's also the most common reason people fail (in social media, they disappear from social media or abandon blogs). When doing isn't a reward in and of itself, you're already heading toward failure.

5. Coping. Business is loaded with adversity. So when products fail to catch interest or a message fails to resonate, people tend to stress themselves out of success. Always keep in mind that few failures (unless intentionally unethical) kill companies or communication plans. Over time, repeated exposure to adversity usually reduces the impact of stressful situations.

6. Self-Reflection. Most strong emotions are hardwired into our brains, which means the reaction we have during any given situation could be based more on past experience than present circumstances. When you feel strong emotions, it's time to step back and objectively review the situation.

7. Balance. Many people burn out in business. They try to reach some goal that isn't tangible because unlike a race, there is no real end. Make time for your physical health, life balance, spiritual fulfillment, and happiness. Balanced people never have to put as much effort into success.

These seven tips don't only apply to small business owners, professionals, or executives. You can easily apply them to communication and social media. Instead of businesses, communicators run long-haul plans or campaigns. Bloggers, more or less, are creating a long-haul project.

Ever wonder why so many blogs are abandoned or cut back to once a week? Reread the tips. One of those is the most likely answer despite whatever excuses they cook up. If they truly had a passion for content creation, they wouldn't have any other choice but to carry on with a project. Much like anything.

Preparing For PR: Advice For High School Students

Every now and again, I receive emails from students, asking advice about communication-related fields. I'm honored by the requests. What I don't do very often is make the inquiry public, but I might reconsider if the question is specific enough.

A few days ago, I received the following letter from a high school student (her name is omitted for obvious reasons). And I thought my response might benefit someone else (at least two percent of it, anyway). Enjoy.

Hi Rich,

I saw your twitter on a list of people involved in the PR industry that should be followed. I am a High School student interested in becoming involved in the industry. I would like to be involved specifically in the sports side of the industry, but I know that I might have to start somewhere else before I can get to where I want to be. I currently am the Sports Information Director of my High School football team where I create press releases and encourage people to attend our games. I hope that this will help me when I try to pursue opportunities outside of school. Any advice that you may have about the industry is greatly appreciated.

Than you for your time,
KB

Five Lessons For Public Relations Students.

Dear KB,

Let me begin by saying that I hope you don't mind taking your inquiry public. Doing so could help other high school students and possibly give you something to refer back to from time to time. It makes it a worthwhile exercise for me too, rather than answering privately like I usually do.

Serving as the sports information director of your high school football team is certainly an early step in the right direction. The experience you gain there could be invaluable when you apply for college. Most students, even college students, don't have enough experience by the time they graduate.

I always encourage them to seek out nonprofit organizations, which provides them an opportunity to help their communities while they help themselves. Surprisingly few do it. The ones that do, however, are almost always hired first and at better companies.

1. Start Where You Are.

Most professionals I know are overly focused on where they want to be two years from now as opposed to the present. It's a mistake. Stronger candidates work on where they are, pouring their passion into whatever they are doing right now.

So let's start there. How can you be the best sports information director possible? Here are three ideas. Purchase an Associated Press Stylebook, which will help you know when to capitalize titles, among many other things. Open dialogues with journalists covering the games (asking how you can help them more effectively) and the people who turn out for the games (specifically the various clubs and associations at your school). Measure everything, especially whether or not your efforts did increase attendance at the games and, perhaps, deeper coverage of the players who will one day be vying for college spots.

2. Pursue A Dual Education.

While you might have a change of heart along the way, investing equal amounts of time studying public relations (communication) and your preferred field will give you a leg up in your profession. If you love sports, a degree in communication, journalism, public relations, or related field along with a degree in health education or sports management will make you much more attractive to an employer in that niche.

Public relations professionals are notorious for whining that they don't have a seat at the executive table. However, more often than not, they haven't earned a place at the table because they invest so much time into public relations and not enough time in the industry in which their company operates. While public relations professionals at firms (as opposed to inside companies) tend to be generalists, a dual education could help there too.

3. Nurture A Network Now.

It's never too early to start nurturing a network. As a high school student actively involved in the field, you have an advantage in nurturing your network. If possible, develop relationships with the coach, journalists, and local public relations professionals.

You might also notice that I intentionally chose the word "nurture" over develop or create. Most public relations professionals develop networks for self-serving agendas (e.g., they befriend "journalists" or "influencers" to get more coverage). You'll be much more effective if the relationships you create are mutually beneficial. The results will be much more powerful than trading favors. The people you seek to help will help you because they want to, not because they owe you. That's priceless.

4. Ask Yourself Who You Want To Be.

Personal branding quacks often advise people to focus on what they want to be. The better question to ask yourself is who you want to be. The difference between those two words are powerful, but most people don't find this out until it is much too late.

It's not all that different from understanding the difference between a strategy or a tactic. Some people insist that objectives and strategies are interchangeable, e.g., that you develop a strategy to get more people to the game. This isn't true. Instead, a strategy might be to make the team more accessible and therefore the players more endearing, which will get more people to the game.

The strategic thinker invests in values that produce long-term outcomes. The tactical thinker invests in tasks that may deliver a short-term benefit but aren't sustainable. By shaping who you want to be (e.g., honest, credible, helpful) will have a lasting impact for life. Developing lists of people, sending out more press releases, offering bribes (free hotdogs), and asking for favors to get ahead will not.

5. Never Accept Advice On Its Face, Including Mine.

Thanks to the Internet, we live in a world where advice has been cheapened to the lowest value in history by allowing everyone to have their turn at the podium. There is nothing wrong with that. I have yet to read an opinion that doesn't lend some value to a conversation, even if the value might be in that you learn the advice stinks.

However, it also creates a world where we must be more vigilant in testing ideas, vetting information, and seeking multiple sources as opposed to assuming that the experts are who they say they are (or their friends for that matter). And even when some of these well-meaning folks are right for themselves, never assume that what was right for them will be right for you. So while there is no harm in trying out advice like you might try on a dress, expect that less than two percent will fit.

That's all I have without giving up the entire book I'm writing in between assignments. I hope some of it fits for you. If it does, I would welcome the occasional update to see how you are doing. You have my direct email.

All my best,
Rich

Counting Impressions: Twitter Follower Nonsense

"What’s the value of a tweet sent by a person with a million followers? What’s the cost per tweet impression?" — Tom Webster

Marketers keep asking the question. And some, like Webster, appreciate that one million followers doesn't have so much meaning.

Counting impressions like traditional media, especially on platforms like Twitter, is junk math. There are too many variables outside traditional impressions because the reason people follow someone or something is not as finite as listening to a radio show or watching a television program.

We watch and listen to programs because we have a vested interest. Twitter is different. The reasons people follow are more akin to the reason for having a full cable package. We have many cable networks not because we watch them, but because they are there. And unlike cable networks, two-way communication means there is a potential for reciprocal broadcasting. Ergo, if you watch my network, I'll watch your network. But unlike Twitter, nobody counts viewers when their televisions are turned off.

10 Reasons Why Twitter Impressions Never Add Up.

• Not every follower is online at any given time. One million can quickly become a few thousand or a few hundred.
• Not every tweet is read. And, increasing the number of tweets can diminish the impact of each tweet.
• Not every follower is interested in what you have to say. Some follow you because you follow them.
• Not every follower likes your topic du jour. Conversations aren't as consistent as programing.
• Not every follower is a follower. Some follow you because they think you're interested in them.
• Not every follower likes you or your organization. Sometimes they follow you to complain or make fun of you.
• Not every follower has any interest in taking action. You can put up links all day and they'll never click them.
• Not every follower can take action. Sometimes proximity or discretionary income can be issue.
• Not every follower is part of your tribe. Sometimes they follow you (or retweet you) because a friend did.
• Not every follower is even a real person. Autobots, auto follows, and auto responders have thousands of followers.

This quick list of ten is only for starters. It hints at the truth. There is no such thing as a Twitter strategy. Individuals have intent and organizations have tactics, and the uses are as varied as the people who make up the greater Twitter space.

Does that mean I'm down on Twitter as a communication tool? Nope. Personally, I have a very narrow intent. I use Twitter to keep up with colleagues, students, and a few friends. That's about it. I listen more than I talk (when I have time to be there).

Other people use it as a broadcast platform (which is what the owners of Twitter say it is). And others use it as a messaging service among friends (which was its original purpose). And others use it to engage customers. And others use it to get book deals based on the delusion that one million followers means something. And some use it to inflate their ego. Good for them.

The reality is that very few people use it to listen (even those who claim to). And even fewer use it to have dialogue. Don't get me wrong. Some do. Not always, but often, those are the people I follow. More importantly, as much as I like them, they cannot sell me a watch. I own two watches. I like them.

In closing, I might add that a friend of mine recently messaged 380,000 people asking for donations for a good cause. His solicitation earned $75. Had his request had been on Twitter, that means his tweet would have had a value of $75. Two years ago, I messaged about 1,200 people about a different cause. I raised more then $5,000.

Outcomes count, even though the real reward in supporting that cause had nothing to do with the money raised or any numbers. It was about people, pure and simple. As soon as they become numbers, they don't count so much. Keep it real.

Overemphasizing External: Companies Still Neglect Employees

While a new survey from the CMO Club and Hill & Knowlton reveals 52 percent of companies have yet to align marketing and public relations efforts, the real story is that 70 percent of chief marketing officers (CMOs) do not have an active employee engagement program.

Perhaps worse, 58 percent of CMOs believe marketing spearheads efforts to galvanize employees. Seriously? Having sat in several meetings where advertising agencies have unveiled new logos by giving employees pens and paperweights, I can assure anyone that not only are employees the most important public, but many of them also wear more than one label.

Five Reasons That Employees Matter As A Public.

• People are more productive when they enjoy what they are doing. Most entrepreneurs always advise that you have to love a business to make it successful. Employees feel the same. If they feel like their employer is making a difference in their lives, then they will work harder to make a difference in people's lives, especially customers.

• People are drawn to building something. Sure, most people are content to let other people set their goals in exchange for security and stable conditions. But great companies empower people more than they employ them. They frequently crowd source from their employees to make improvements on every level.

• People want to be proud of where they contribute. One of the most neglected areas of crisis communication is employee communication. Even while companies such as BP spend millions to ease the markets, they forget the residual impact of several thousand employees who are embarrassed to tell people where they work.

• People don't wear just one hat. This is especially true for B2C companies, but B2B as well. Employees are frequently customers and shareholders too. And, with the exception of luxury brands, consumers feel comforted knowing that the bank teller keeps her account at the same bank and the car salesman drives the brand he sells. Likewise, employees who have some of their retirement wrapped up in a company are equally sensitive to stock fluctuations.

• People don't like surveys all that much. If your only employee feedback is in the form of a survey, they're not engaged. In fact, most employees are afraid to provide honest feedback for fear of being fired. It's much more effective to establish communication through supervisors (whom employees tend to trust) and some direct contact with executives. If your employees aren't comfortable with sharing information direct, it's likely a symptom of bigger problems.

Who Should Lead The Employee Engagement Effort?

Interestingly enough, many companies struggle with the question as much as they struggle with who is best suited to lead social media. Given all companies are different, there seems to be only one right answer. True integrated communication is ongoing, not ad hoc, which leaves the person best suited to the task being the leader.

Right. Leaders are best suited to lead whether they come from the public relations, corporate communication, marketing, investor relations, or even human resources department. And in communication, the best leaders tend to be those who are the most experienced across a variety of disciplines. Or, in other words, if you are an entrepreneur making the decision, choose people over professions.

Remaining Competitive: Lessons From The U.S.

For the first time in history, the United States fell two positions as a competitive nation, dropping from second to fourth place. This is according to the World Economic Forum's (WEF) competitiveness survey, which analyzes each country's ability to remain competitive in global business.

While the meaning may have political ramifications, I thought it might be more worthwhile to apply some of the broader lessons to organizational and individual success. Among the top ten problematic factors for doing business in the United States, access to financing (regulatory caused), inefficient government bureaucracy, tax rates and regulations, inflation, workforce education, and work ethic round out the top of the list. How do these apply to business?

Five Lessons To Remain Competitive.

1. Avoid Debt. While many small business owners and individuals sometimes take on debt to rapidly improve the scope and size of their financial position, the wrong reason to go into debt is an attempt to maintain operational levels or lifestyle. Not only will access to financing eventually run out, but the interest rates on that financing can overburden long-term goals.

The best bet for businesses attempting to remain competitive (and individuals) is to accept such risks only when there is a clear outcome. For example, when founding Copywrite, Ink. almost 20 years ago, I used credit to purchase my first computer, a monochrome Mac Classic. Increased productivity (over typed assignments) quickly paid for improvements. Avoid any financing that does not produce a higher yield.

2. Remove Restrictions. Too many policies and regulations can thwart proactive thinking. In business, almost every organization that has an excess of regulatory procedures tends to struggle (consider the airline industry). When employees are not allowed to think creatively or make judgement calls, they become demoralized and stifled. Likewise, it always pays to eliminate bureaucracy, which tends to create regulations without relaxing them.

For individuals, the same is true. Overcommitting on favors, plans, and other personal commitments can eventually erode spontaneous free time, which the mind needs to recharge. Learn to say no once in awhile and don't assume working harder or longer hours will increase your productivity. Often, it will not. It also pays to never assume you can't do something.

3. Focus On Innovation. There is an old saying in politics that if you're defending, then you are losing. There is some truth to that. Businesses that invest more into fending off competition as opposed to innovating will eventually collapse.

Likewise, only individuals who subscribe to complacency ever need to "worry" about younger workers rushing to take their places. It's not their youth that gives them an edge; it's their tenacious passion in lieu of time-in entitlement. If you are not willing to think out of the box, you can bet someone else will.

4. Emphasize Education. Persuasion might be valued in the workplace today, but information will win in the long run. Social media pros often advise businesses to listen, and on this point they are right. The person who knows the consumer better will win.

For individuals, not only will the most successful professionals continually learn inside their fields, but outside their fields as well. I've met and worked for dozens of companies that were not the most competitive firms in communication and marketing, but could be easily considered the best in specialized fields (e.g., medical, finance, emergency response, etc.). Never stop learning.

5. Set Your Own Path. Yesterday, I mentioned that there is no singular path through the forest to success. More correctly, there is a forest to success but most successful companies and individuals cut new paths to reach the other side.

In classes, I sometimes joke that Robert Frost was wrong. It is not the path less traveled, but carving out new paths that will make all the difference. It's how this country was founded. It's how most companies excel. And it's why there are so many different stories for individual success. It's not about implementing what everyone else is doing; it's about finding a better way.

Lessons From WEF And Back Again.

Just as individuals and organizations might learn something from how the WEF ranks countries, our government might learn something from those individual and business tips above. If the government wants to play a role in strengthening the economy, it would be prudent to stop overspending, remove restrictions (taxes and regulations), focus on immediate innovation, invest in education, and stop attempting to duplicate what Europe does.

On that last point, I have nothing against European ideas. On the contrary, they have great ideas for Europe. But transplanting those ideas have profound consequences here. Case in point: building a super department store in an urban setting is a good idea, but when that same store is built in a rural community, it kills the economy. One size does not fit all.

You can find the two-page report on the United States here. In addition to citing those problem areas, the survey ranks 15 indicators with subcategories. Some subcategories are surprising, including that we ranked 40th among property rights, 120th in national debt, and 89th in total tax rates.

Being Different: Fresh Content Project

While social media isn't the end all to communication, it did open a conversation that marketers had forgotten. There is no singular path through the forest to success. More correctly, there is a forest to success but it is your willingness to cut a new path that will take you where you want to go.

All fresh posts, three of which are by one author, touch on this fact. Communication is situational in its crafting and delivery. It's never the answer most people want to hear, but it is, without question, one of the most important lessons to learn. Ask any successful marketer and they'll tell you. While some experience can help you plot the course, the course is always different.

Best Fresh Content In Review, Week of August 30

• Should You Be Pitching Me?.
"You give me way too much credit if you think your potential customers read my blog," begins a thoughtful post by Valeria Maltoni before going on to explain that new new media is not the same as traditional media. Many professionals have better luck doing something other than pitching something, she says. And she's right. The quantity of the pitch in social media is less than the quality of the pitch to a single blogger. Think about it. Who knows? Maybe you'd be better off talking to customers direct...

• Five Steps to Better Communication With Customers.
Anna Barcelos shares her wisdom with five tips that might help your organization communicate with customers. I'll share a few here. The first, she suggests, is finding out exactly what is going on within your organization. It might be of interest to someone (but perhaps not who you think). Another is to visualize them as real people. And finally, realize that there are no cookie cutter solutions in modern marketing. All of it requires that you test, measure, and adjust on an ongoing basis.

• Four Challenges Facing Location-Based Services.
Almost everyone knows that the next step in communication is mobile, especially with continued advancements to location-based services. However, that doesn't mean that the transition is guaranteed. In this post, Mike Schaffer shares what he believes are the greatest challenges facing location-based services: fear, technology, urban-centric, and badge exhaustion. All of them are valid, with only technological penetration being the easiest to overcome.

• Set Your Own Rules.
When Valeria Maltoni writes a quick book review, she frequently lends as much to a conversation as she gets out of it. In this post, she runs down a list of 11 ways to be unremarkably average from The Art of Non-Conformity by Chris Guillebeau and applies it to her own life. At the same time, without asking her readers to do it, it's easy enough to infer that it might be a worthwhile experience. How about you? Are you stuck on rules that make you unremarkable?

• See How They Did It: 104 Social Media Case Studies
There really are more than 104 case studies in Valeria Maltoni's notes, but she only shared 12 within the body of a single post. Even better than the case studies, she provides a four-step structure not all that dissimilar to strategic communication case studies: situation or challenge, timeline or complication, solution, and results. Showing how these four fit within a strategic communication outline would take a little longer than a couple of sentences so I'll highlight the best point here. If you understand the true situation or the challenge, you'll be that much more likely to develop a strategic solution as opposed to a tactical one.

Pressing Introverts: What Modern Engagement Misses

With social networks becoming a dominant form of communication, at least in terms of the attention they receive, one might wonder where that leaves introverts. People who respond quickly, comment frequently, and network more efficiently seem to have an upper hand at a glance, especially in communication-related fields.

I was reminded of this while reviewing the very odd Facebook game called poweRBrands developed by Reckitt Benckiser. The game is designed to mirror the real-life experience of being a marketing executive in a cutting-edge company such as RB. No, it's not much fun for people who are marketing executives (the demographics are ages 18-30), but this isn't a review.

What struck me about the game is how much emphasis is placed on creating the illusion of networking. If you receive a call to attend a party (even if there is a research project due), you go. If you're invited to lunch, you go. If something needs to be brainstormed, you call the team together.

The Elevation Of Extroverts In Communication.

The point is that the game, much like the field, is surprisingly extrovert driven (even at the expense of results). So much so it almost seems counter intuitive, doubly so after reading a Psychology Today article by Laurie Helgoe, author and psychologist.

In the article, Helgoe discusses the personality-culture clash that introverts experience in a society that rewards extroversion, and corrects misunderstandings about the 50 percent of the population who prefer an active inner life to a busy social calendar. But this idea also made me wonder. While Helgoe considers the extroverts and introverts in the workplace, I wondered about them in social networks and whether some social media experts consider this as part of their communication equation.

For example, there seems to be a great emphasis placed on verbalized engagement — comment counts, open dialogue, and everything that can be seen (and counted). But what if particular content attracts fewer introverts? And why do social media experts discount their quiet influence?

The Role Of The Introvert In Social Networks.

Last year, Anthony Vultaggio made an interesting observation that connecting online is less social and more solitary than we might think. Publishing content on social networks, he said, gives introverts an advantage because they don't have a need to receive feedback from others.

Like journalists, he said, they reach inward and let others connect to their messages. However, I'm not so sure this is the way it stacks up in terms of capturing greater numbers of followers (if that is the intent for whatever reason). On Twitter, for example, extroverts tend to ask many more questions and have many more conversations because they have generally skip reflection.

Ergo, interaction attracts more interest. And, as I've mentioned before, there is ample evidence that social bloggers — people who speak and attend gatherings — leverage their offline connections to drive traffic to their online content. But more importantly, this still doesn't consider whether the quieter portion of the population is somehow being missed.

They share less, but tend to have more to say about what they share. They come up with great ideas, but don't measure outputs. They tend to be uncounted by social media measures, but are counted when it comes to actual outcomes. They bookmark more, anticipating to revisit ports and articles when they have more time to process the information.

Meanwhile, a social media project manager might be missing the introvert's presence all together, or worse, chase them away by trying to draw them out. (I actually witnessed this on a few occasions on Facebook; introverts fled after a page manager tried to engage them on something they quietly liked.)

The Crazy Thing About Measurements And Labels.

Personally, I don't believe there are such a things as introverts and extroverts as much as I believe there are behavior styles. Then again, I'm about as anti-label as they come with the exception of temporarily adopting labels to keep conversations fluid.

But this conversation starter might also lend itself to different insights for social media managers or whatever they might call themselves. Social media monitoring isn't nearly enough in terms of listening. And, as far as the workplace, I might add that drawing introverts "out of their shells" might be less effective than aligning them to areas where they can be a benefit.

Maybe the truth about what customers think about your product or service cannot be ferreted out by the data that is so readily available. And, depending on the type of people you attract, loud data might even be driving you in the wrong direction.

Advertising Tips: Two From Earnest Elmo Calkins

"Come to the point, and don't draw attention to the advertisement instead of to the goods." — Earnest Elmo Calkins

These two pieces of advice might surprise some, given that Calkins was one of the first advertisers to increase the quality of the art department at his agency. However, Calkins knew what many communicators have been forgetting in the last few decades.

Get To The Point.

Ideally, every advertisement has one point. Sometimes you can slip in up to three points. But any more than that and most people aren't likely to remember anything, let alone one thing that serves as a unique selling point or, preferably, product contrast. If you don't or rely on branding alone, you will eventually lose market share.

Nike provides a fine example. In 2009, most reports placed Nike at controlling 31 percent of the market share . It's clearly the market leader. However, the real story is that Nike controlled almost 50 percent of the market share in 1999. Ouch.

For all the fine advertisements that Nike has produced over the last decade, the company began focusing on branding alone, without any definitive reason to purchase the product. The point? It used to be associated with victory. What about today? Mostly, the company celebrates itself.

Draw Attention To The Product.

Nike isn't alone. Some advertisers have an ego, drawing more attention to the advertisements than the product. People might talk about the ads, but they never have a reason to buy.

Budweiser provides a good example. Bud Light dominates with 28 percent of the market share and Budweiser with 12 percent. In 2000, Budweiser controlled almost 50 percent of the market share collectively. What changed?

The advertising mix used to emphasize one of three creative threads: product quality, social responsibility, and contemporary humor. In the last decade, Budweiser seems to have invested more in contemporary humor, leaving the other two threads behind.

Social Media Presses The Shift.

These two brands are not alone. And part of the shift seems associated with social media. Most people propose social media solutions that do two things: never get to the point and always emphasize everything but the product. It's not sustainable.

There is one exception. Social media speakers can get away with this approach because they are their own product. So unlike goods, their ability to create relationships (indirect sales) and speak to people on their terms (reactive conversation) sells product. Goods and services are different.

People are mostly interested in the organization's ability to meet its core promise. And that is the reason an airline like Spirit Airlines can exist. Its promise is to get you to your destination cheap. All other factors — up-charges, service fees, relationships — are circumvented as long as they can deliver a $10 base fare. (Operationally, I'm not sure it's sustainable.)

Contrast this promise against most airlines that are attempting to sell competitive fares, friendly service, on-time arrivals, reward programs, and customer care for luggage. Multiple promise points tend to water down the message, and leave more room for error. Or, as we see with what could be happening with Nike and Budweiser recently, no point is equally disruptive.

Keeping House: How Good Housekeeping Connects

Good Housekeeping, the iconic women's service monthly originally founded in 1885, is looking for the next step in creating connections with consumers. According to Mediaweek, the magazine is transforming a 2,000- square-foot space at the Mall of America into an American home.

The home won't be static. It will include activities that include cooking demos, DYI projects, and design consultations by celebrity chefs, local personalities and experts from the Research Institute. With more than 100,000 people visiting Mall of America every day (on average), the concept could pay off, assuming Good Housekeeping can keep consumers it touches at the mall.

Touching Customers Beyond The Printed Page.

If there is an evolution for publications, especially niche publications like Good Housekeeping, it could very well be high touch. In order to relate to consumers and build connections, the magazine needs to redefine what makes it a relevant connection between brands and customers. Using its Research Institute as the reason, Good Housekeeping hopes to provide expert advice to build loyalty.

In recent years, social media has provided a platform that convinced many consumers to move away from publications, preferring advice from friends or people they like online. When not seeking advice from each other, it's easy enough to connect direct to companies for incentives and insights from inside sources. Publications helped pushed them away by insisting on an elitist position. The economic climate didn't help either. Subscriptions and monthly costs are often the first to be cut from budgets.

However, if Good Housekeeping can introduce itself by coordinating offline activities and then keep consumers engaged via social media, then there is a potential for success. Specifically, Good Housekeeping could transform itself into a destination.

What's Missing From The Marketing Mix?

The Mall of America is a good first step. However, Good Housekeeping only has a marginal social media presence (it doesn't even list its social media assets on its front page). Most of the communication consists of plugging articles, even those that are framed as questions. They are not questions as much as as cutlines. The dialogue between the publication and followers is limited.

Despite this, some of its online connections are readily engaged. On Facebook, most plugs average about six responses. It's a good start from the 6,500 or so people who follow along.

With the addition of the physical presence, Good Housekeeping has an opportunity to use the instructional workshops and celebrity visits as an introduction to its online platforms. Once people connect, it can engage them over the long term, even if the intent of the American home is to become mobile. There are plenty of other crossover media opportunities too, including the potential to film and share onsite demonstrations.

Much like Citizen Gulf or publishers and bookstores hosting author signings, the real future of communication points to online marketing that drives consumers to proximity-based events, demonstrations, and high touch opportunities that can be later shared as fresh content.

It's not all that dissimilar to what social media speakers already do. Speaking drives traffic, which can then be converted into sales (books, services, etc.). At the same time, the increased following then makes the speaker more attractive to the next host.

It's not rocket science. It's strategic. And if this is the direction Good Housekeeping goes, then it should be no surprise why Hearst Magazines has successfully adapted to changes in the marketplace with Good Housekeeping for almost 100 years. About the only thing it hasn't done is become more cross-gender friendly. However, looking at online followers, maybe it has.

Failing Pitch: How A PR Firm Can Derail Exposure

When a public relations firm has a client roster that claims Fender, Dickies, Red Bull, and MTV, you might expect a great pitch. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. The back of the house sounds different than the front. I've forgotten by how much.

If last week is any indication of things to come, there may be no shortage of silliness after sticking our toes back in the murky waters of publishing. Liquid [Hip] might be a side project, but it's quickly picking up steam and some people have taken notice.

Most pitches are professional. Penguin Books, for example, know what it is doing. From pitch to coverage, even their intern was professional. Likewise, we thought a mostly unknown musician did pretty well. She didn't have any public relations experience, but her pitch convinced us she had a story worth sharing. And then there was that firm with all those bright and shiny clients.

How PR Pitches Have Negative Impact.

The pitch was sent late at 6:10 p.m. on Friday, without any contact information other than a name and two links to their Web sites. What was especially unusual, is that it wasn't even a pitch as much as a time-sensitive promotional solicitation. Here it is, minus the closure.

Dear Rich/friends at LiquidHip,

I got your contact via the “inquiries” link given on your site, and was wondering if you’d be interested in doing a CD giveaway for the new Jenny Johnny album “I’m Havin’ Fun Now”? It comes out next Tuesday, and I was hoping we could have you set it up. If we could try shooting for next Tuesday (August 31st), that would be perfect, but obviously we can work around that date. Let me know if you’re interested. It’s a great album! It’s received a bunch of buzz thanks to the NPR stream posted up on Monday. Anyway, if you could get back to me ASAP that’d be great! Thanks so much!

Cheers,
[Name]

I happened to catch it as I was closing up late in the day. In retrospect, misspelling the name of the band, Jenny And Johnny, ought to have been a red flag. Referencing what NPR, another media outlet, did was also questionable. Ending with "Cheers" is always a bad sign in the U.S. But we bit.

After some discussion on whether or not we could accommodate the short notice (editorial juggling, establishing the giveaway criteria, getting an advance release, etc.), we decided it might be fun for our growing group. Besides, we had already covered a single from Jenny And Johnny and were bullish on the album. We responded within 30 minutes, with direct contact information for the weekend.

No call or follow up ever came. By Monday, we assumed the public relations firm had realized the Friday to Tuesday turn time was too close, even for them. By the end of the week, we thought otherwise. It was just a bad pitch, probably part of a mass email scheme to get publishers to read past the first line.

The downside for Jenny And Johnny was that we had intended to review the full album the following Friday (Sept. 3) until receiving the inquiry. We moved the review to Tuesday. But then, with no follow up from the firm, we covered what we originally planned and gave the Friday spot to the under covered My Gold Mask. We expect great things from them.

When you add it all up, it's a peculiar chain of events. Jenny And Johnny went from having an album review to a CD giveaway to nothing in less than one working day. Well, not nothing.

I can always use the experience to teach other public relations professionals and students what not to do. If you're going pitch, stick with it. Otherwise, your client will lose and your next pitch will end up in the don't bother pile.

Remembering Workers: Labor Day

It seems fitting to cite a recent poll conducted by Hart Research Associates on Labor Day, which is meant to recognize workers for their contributions. The small voter poll (801 likely voters) found that even those who are employed have been impacted by the recession.

Three-quarters of respondents to the survey said that either they or someone they know has been affected by wages that lag behind the cost of living. Sixty-five percent said that they or someone they know has suffered a reduction in wages. One-third of those polled has had a family member directly impacted. (Keep in mind, only 801 people were surveyed.)

Highlights From The Hart Poll.

• 62 percent of non-college graduates are facing challenging/difficult times.
• 49 percent of college-educated peers are facing challenging/difficult times.
• 62 percent of blue collar workers are having personal economic difficulty.
• 51 percent of white collar and 52 percent of professionals are having personal economic difficulty.
• 71 percent of Hispanics, 66 percent of African Americans, and 53 percent of caucasians are struggling.

The challenges that have impacted these Americans the most have been wages and salaries not keeping up with inflation (46 percent), reduced hours at work (32 percent), and loss of job (27 percent). Change to Win, which commissioned the survey, is using the data as part of a campaign to lobby government to promote higher wages.

Unfortunately, higher wages generally diminishes the number of workers and increases unemployment. This, in turn, diminishes demand and companies are forced to lay off even more people or suggest pay freezes and/or salary reductions to retain staff. Even local, state, and federal governments operate under this model.

Government workers are being asked to forego merit pay to help keep departmental budgets in line. And when government cannot come to such a consensus, it cuts workers and adds to unemployment. In addition, more regulations tend to convince companies to delay hiring by the private sector.

The Economy Relies On The Success Of Small Business.

If anyone wants to understand the American economy, look to small business owners. Currently, small businesses represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms, staff more than half of all private sector employees, and are responsible for generating 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years (SBA). These firms are also the most likely to have owners who make marginally more than employees (unlike corporate CEOs, whose salaries are often cited in these studies).

Likewise, the study also shows why most Americans have an aversion to higher taxes. The majority consists of individuals who are already struggling against a dollar that doesn't go as far and small business owners already struggling to keep the doors open and wondering how they are going to pay for additional mandates.

While this might seem dour for a day most Americans consider the last day of summer, there are three takeaways. Good employers and employees are in this together. The private sector, especially small business, is the key to turning the economy around. And if you're a marketer, it might give you pause in considering the environment in which your messages are sent.

Managing People: Fresh Content Project

Most communicators (the better ones anyway) already know you cannot "control" information or people. The most you can hope for is developing a brand promise that can be met.

In other words, the best you can do is to manage your behavior and your communication (or your company's communication when you are charged with writing or speaking it). And by doing so — assuming you have the right passion, energy, realism, and enthusiasm — you might set an example for others to follow, colleagues or coworkers, or inspire consumers to give your company an opportunity to make them customers.

All five fresh picks tap into management in one form or another. And, all five provide a lesson that you can apply today, one that is vastly superior to always being worried about the other guy, whomever that might be.

Best Fresh Content In Review, Week of August 23

• Everyone Is Replaceable.
Andrew Weaver puts his spin on a classic executive reminder that "everyone is replaceable" but with a lesson that some might find surprising. While the old adage might be true, the reminder isn't for employees as much as managers. Given the weakened economy, Weaver alludes to the idea that some managers are taking the easiest possible management path ... fear. Unfortunately, fear has a habit of demoralizing employees even if their output increases over the short term.

• The Connection Between Branding and the Customer Experience.
Jay Ehret presents a simplified take on how branding works within the context of customer service. Specifically, he says that the brand promise plus the personality of the brand provides the expectation or framework for what people expect. The quickest way to kill a brand is to deviate from the framework. When that happens, it breaks trust. Incidentally, a new study conducted by the Relational Capital Group and a team of researchers at Princeton University proves exactly that.

• Staggering Discovery: Goal-Oriented Content Works.
Even before citing six points for goal-oriented content, Valeria Maltoni lays down an important piece of information. She says writing about a subject without passion will circumvent any goals you might have in mind. She's right and that's where her six points come into play. Not only do they serve as a model for what you are trying to do, but they also help some writers remember why they used to be passionate about the subject matter in the first place. By asking yourself the six questions she proposes, you might reignite some passion in your writing.

• When a Good Thing Comes Together: Helping Neighbors in the Gulf of Mexico.
There were several recaps to the Citizen Gulf event held last month and all of them were solid. However, Kami Watson Huyse's recap seemed to go even further in accounting many of the people involved. The best part of Citizen Gulf was that it took the social aspects of online communication and brought them to life in 20 cities across the United States. If you didn't happen to be in one of those cities, you could find enough online updates that you still fell connected.

• The Most Wasted Page On the Web
John Jantsch points out one Web page that seems to have no content management whatsoever — the thank you page. Most companies either waste the space outright or oversell, making customers regret the decision to give up their email address in the first place. In the post, Jantsch provides several ideas that many customers might respond to, including optional surveys, related context (related to why they subscribed), or an instructional page that might prove useful on their next visit.

Buying Into Brands: Not So Different From People

Every day, people make second-by-second judgments about other people within their proximity. It happens so fast that much of the information is processed in the subconscious, managed by whatever cognitive filters we've built up over the years, e.g., we might avoid people who look angry or flash a smile to someone in return.

Over time, those perceptions might stick with reoccurring experiences and repeated exposure. If the person always seems angry, our mind eventually labels them as an angry person. Conversely, people who are always smiling might be categorized as happy.

Our Judgments About Brands Aren't Much Different Than People.

A new study conducted by the Relational Capital Group and a team of researchers at Princeton University recently found that we shape opinions about brands much the same way. We develop perceptions about the brand based on experiences and repeated exposure, with brands that have warmth and competence.

"Since the emergence of mass market brands, products and services have been defined by their features and benefits," said Chris Malone, chief advisory officer of the Relational Capital Group. "This new study suggests that features and benefits are simply an incomplete subset of the broader categories of warmth and competence that consumers perceive and judge brands against."

The study links back this new understanding to early development. According to the study, the researchers recognize people as the first brands, with faces acting as the first logos. The most common judgments people make toward symbols: their warmth (intention toward us) and their competence (ability to carry out these intentions).

To break down this understanding further, warmth includes traits such as friendliness, helpfulness, sincerity, trustworthiness, and honesty. Competence is reflected by traits such as intelligence, skill, creativity, efficiency, and effectiveness.

"We've found strong statistical correlation between consumers' perceptions of each brand's warmth and competence and their intent to purchase and remain loyal to that brand," said Dr. Susan T. Fiske, one of the two lead researchers. "These findings are consistent with other studies we've conducted that validate the influence and predictive power of warmth and competence on human behavior. In effect, it shows that people were the first brands and faces were the first logos."

The Uphill Battle For Brands To Earn Trust And Succeed.

In the eyes of the consumers, however, brands have to earn trust to break away from the preconceived notions that already exist about companies in general. Specifically, many companies convey that they are primarily interested in advancing their own self-interest and can't be trusted, especially when no one is watching. While the study provided examples of companies that have succeeded in doing this, it didn't offer concrete suggestions for improvements.

Having studied this concept before, we know several. Here are three that come quickly to mind, with an emphasis on warmth.

• Innovative companies tend to earn trust quickly because they have worked to do something for the customer first.
• Customer service oriented companies tend to exhibit warmth because they create a people-to-people connection.
• Engaged companies, such as those who have off-sales conversations online, are frequently considered more helpful.

Once a company or organization can dispel the notion that it only has self-serving interests, repeated exposure and reoccurring positive experiences will prove the company's competence. For example, the warmth associated with Apple convinced people to test drive Ping, but the execution made some people question its confidence and intention.

Conversely, when Apple originally launched the iPhone, the warmth people associated with the brand overcame the prelaunch criticism. And then, when people learned Apple really did reinvent the smart phone, it reinforced a perception of competence.

You can apply these findings to nearly any organization. Our most immediate judgment is generally based on our perception of someone's intentions toward us. Ironically, these initial perceptions are often proven incorrect (for good or bad outcomes), but it doesn't change the fact that this is how we're wired.

Test Driving Ping: An Apple Baby Step Into Social

After spending a few hours poking around the first attempt at a social network by Apple, I have to give props to all my friends who have said Apple doesn't understand social. Maybe it will in the future, but it doesn't really understand it today.

Ping has potential, but this launch is best described as a soft open. It seems less than fully functional. And while Steve Jobs described it as Twitter meets Facebook for music, it seems like something else. It feels like a walled fledgling of what we know about networks, crossed with a non-commissioned marketing platform because everything you like comes with a buy button.

And that's the real point, isn't it?

What Apple seemed to miss out of the starting gate is that people don't generally go to this social network to talk about "music" and that social network to talk about "restaurants." That's not a social network. It's a niche forum. And if Apple created anything, it is a password protected forum with a partial social network template laid over the top.

Is that how social networks work? Not really. The current success of Twitter and Facebook illustrates that. Those networks succeeded because there were no limits to what you could talk about. You only needed to show up and find people you knew or wanted to know. It's about people. This is about product.

Specifically, Ping works in exactly the opposite way. You find music and "like" it and then ... um, I would like to say find people to follow but that is a real challenge. Other than three people recommended, your only options are "search" and "email," which are my least two favorite ways to connect with people. (Search is fine, but it's a time waster for social upstarts.) The only other way to pay attention to who other people follow, too.

The Facebook connect feature seemed promising before it was removed late in the game. It was removed so late in the game that the Ping intro page still tells you that you can connect to Facebook. Except, you can't. So don't look. (You can find me if you like. Search for "Rich Becker" on Ping.)

By the way, did I say search for music? Not every album and artist has a like button. I know, because the first thing I thought to do is travel down the list of our recent reviews from Liquid [Hip] and quickly connect them up before someone does start to follow me. About 30 percent didn't have like buttons.

I suppose that makes sense. We focus on cool, not popular. Some recent covers aren't cool enough to like, apparently. And that makes the entire platform, as it exists today, loaded down with tighter rules than Fight Club. Case in point ...

The Rules Of Ping Club.

1. The first rule of Ping club is you do not link to Ping club and you do not link out of Ping club.

2. The second rule of Ping club is, you DO NOT link in or out of Ping club.

3. If someone lags because the interface is painfully slow, the conversation is over.

4. Two people connect at one time, if you find them.

5. One "like" at a time and you won't remember what those were 20 "likes" from now.

6. No frills, friendships, updates. This is about music.

7. You'll participate as long as you have to, three times longer than anywhere else (see 3).

8. If this is your first time on Ping, you have to do something.

Look, most people consider me a fan of Apple, given I still have a working monochrome Mac Classic on my shelf. The same one I used to start Copywrite, Ink. almost 20 years ago. And, since we started Liquid [Hip], I spend even more time on iTunes because it has a solid storefront to keep track of new music, movies, etc. So, I'll give Ping some time to flush itself out. It has potential.

However, I'm not so enamored by any brand to believe this launch was ready for prime time. It's a network of sorts, but it's not social. At least, not yet. To date, the only thing inspiring about it is some inspiration to write up what Ping could have been. And maybe I'll do that next week.

One redeeming feature? The concert listings is a cool idea. But it would have been brilliant if there was some feature to coordinate concert attendance with your circle of friends. Moving the online world offline is part of our connected futures.

Related Articles And Posts.

• 10 Questions About Ping, Apple's Social Network For Music.

• Apple's Ping Social Network Is Actually Good, And It Has Huge Potential.

• Facebook’s Apple Ping demands were ‘too onerous’, says Jobs

Embracing Silly: The Seriousness Of Social Media

"My words fly up, my thoughts remain below: Words without thoughts never to heaven go." — Hamlet (III, iii, 100-103)

When social media turns serious, it strikes me as silly. It doesn't mean there isn't any value in the communication being offered. Although sometimes, with furled brows and lessons to be taught, that is the way communication plays out as Matt Lawton reminded me yesterday.

"pls enlighten me, what is so 'silly' about the @shelholtz post It’s time for the anti-social media guru meme to die? I think u shld explain or it's rather rude." — Matt Lawton.

If you ever read his posterous blog, you'll occasionally find some funny stuff. Even on his Twitter profile, he shares to "learn and laugh." So, I played along, conveying the seriousness of the silly statement.

Really, Lawton's contribution doesn't matter so much. Shel Holtz had already contrasted my comment with one that called his post "great." Nay, I say, there is no contrast. There are as many valid points in his post as there are layers of silliness, including the notion that one can call for the death of a meme by adding to it, especially one as silly as the great guru debate has become.

Let's step back and focus on that for a moment. What's the big deal?

What's The Big Deal About The Social Media Guru Title Anyway?

As Holtz points out, when people attack the social media guru title, they are generally referring to those who have a propensity to use it — inexperienced folks with inflated egos, sleight-of-hand huskers, and whomever has a Twitter account in a room full of people who do not (they claim to be the resident experts of their little worlds).

Oh, and then there are those who are called a "social media guru" when they are introduced as Holtz says he has been. (Me too, for that matter, leaving me to make the point that I would never call myself a "guru" of anything, for a laugh.) And, of course, there are a few respected communicators who enjoy embracing the guru moniker (or, even more laughable, swami). Personally, they can call themselves lunch pail, for all I care.

However, perhaps along the way, they might enlighten themselves and appreciate that Westerners usurped these spiritual titles from the East. You do know that, right?

Originally, being a guru meant you were a Hindu or Sikh religious teacher and spiritual guide (although it is widely adopted in contemporary India with the universal meaning of the word "teacher"). The title was introduced in the West by some Eastern gurus and/or returning Westerners enlightened by the East and then was snapped up in the United States by the "New Age" movement in the 1970s.

The title "guru" quickly fell out of favor after several self-proclaimed gurus were discovered to be charlatans, cons, or even delusional. So why social media people ever thought to resurrect the soiled Western version of the word is beyond me. And now, in an attempt to be different, some want to usurp "swami" too, which perplexes me given that most Westerners would react to the title of "social media rabbi" or "social media pastor" or "social media priest" with alarmist disdain (unless they really are).

But as I said, this is no judgement of people. To each his own.

Mostly, I do think that some communicators have a distaste for "social media guru" as they do "anything guru," except as it was intended. Case in point, "plumbing guru" might score a few chuckles despite being better equipped to clear away darkness from your drain than a social media guru can light your way toward embracing social media.

"This being the case, just who are these anti-guru posts aimed at? It seems to me they’re mainly written by insecure practitioners trying to bolster their own egos and puffed-up prima donnas lording their superiority over their peers in the echo chamber." — Shel Holtz

Then what about those who pen anti anti-guru posts? Or this post, which I suppose is an anti anti anti-guru post? Can we take any of this seriously? I seriously hope not. There is no hypocrisy, except errant judgment about individuals as opposed to behaviors.

My world is much more simple. People are free to call themselves whatever they want. And, other people are free to respond to all those titles —  mavens, masters, experts, Jedi, rock stars, bards, ninjas, thinkerbells, poodle hoopers — as they feel fit. But, at the same time, if any of these folks were truly enlightened as they claim, they would already know titles are meaningless things.

I learned that long ago, and I am still grateful for the gift. People don't relate to titles, they relate to individual people.

Besides, some communicators need the freedom of pointing out the flawed behaviors from "social media gurus" or "public relations professionals" or "personal branding experts" or "pompous journalists" in order to sometimes avoid citing specific individuals as Holtz did. It doesn't hurt anyone because anyone employing one of the more comical titles with effect already knows that the audiences they attract don't come for random titles. They come to see a person.

So that's why I called the Holtz post silly (which is a far cry from calling Holtz silly for those who embraced diatribe so quickly and DMed me to ask how dare I rub against a guru). Because, the way I see it, if I didn't find his post silly, then it would be soap boxing. I hope not. Soap boxes are ugly, which is why I find this post amazingly silly too.

Except, maybe, for the very foundation of it. There are no rules. Write what you want. Just remember, however, if you choose to call yourself the "cardinal of copywriters," it's a moniker that rightly deserves a snicker or two. All hail, you too, guru.