I’ve been thinking a lot lately about Blake Ewings’ closing keynote at last weeks’ Social Media Tulsa conference. One of the key takeaways for me was this statement:

It doesn’t mean only “tweet positive” but it does mean when sending thoughts, links, info etc. out into the world, we should all be mindful of the larger effect. It’s easy to say, “If you wouldn’t want your Mom to know, don’t post it,” but really, most of us feel a little more insulated in our online worlds than that. We use the public conversation to share our private frustrations. Sometimes, before we’ve taken the time to try to solve them privately. I have been guilty of this…

I’m still processing how and what I want to change about how I participate in the public conversation. What kind of social responsibility comes with a larger-than-average audience online? Mine isn’t anything like the superstars of the Interwebs, but it’s exponentially larger than the “average Jane” on Twitter, Facebook, etc. What obligations does that, or should that, entail as far as sharing?

And… based on some feedback I’ve already gotten on this post… does being more human actually give you more of a voice? Do people just care more if they “know you?” My instincts and experience tell me yes.

Like I said, still processing… and interested to hear your thoughts!

Twitter became meaningful for me two years ago today. Happy Anniversary, sweetheart

Today is the anniversary of the day I figured out the power of Twitter. I’d joined a few months before, in November of 2008. I’d tweeted some, and found and followed about two dozen people I respected in my industry… names I knew from MarketingProfs.com or from reading blog posts or articles. But mostly it was just for fun and a way for me to collect links and articles more quickly. I’d yet to really utilize a news/blog reader very well, so Twitter was serving that purpose. I’d first become intrigued after spending the previous year on Facebook, joining FriendFeed, and then hearing/seeing/reading about Twitter in industry articles. No one seemed really clear on what to do WITH it, just clear that everyone should be DOING it. I began to read… a lot. I didn’t follow anyone else and decided to start tweeting the good content I found, and commenting on it. I knew nothing of hashtags, really, other than that they existed. I’d never participated in a chat. I was determined to see if sharing good content was a strategy that actually worked, though…. so away I went.

After a couple of months, my following had grown to several hundred, based on luck and retweets of the content I’d created or shared. I still wasn’t actively following anyone, but I’d begun to talk to the followers I did have and with those I’d initially followed. Cool… but still not earth-shattering or profoundly game-changing. Then came Superbowl 43. I sat down to watch with my family, with my laptop… and started tweeting about the commercials (Hey, the Dolphins weren’t in it, and growing businesses is my profession). Suddenly, as the hashtag for the ads connected me to a slew of people across the globe all seeing and reacting to the same thing I was, at the same time, through a single medium, the power of Twitter (indeed, of all social media) became crystal clear to me. The conversations and engagement were infectious and addicting. I debated, agreed, challenged, tweeted and retweeted though the entire game, and have been actively engaged ever since. Because life is always happening, everywhere, all the time, and people are talking about it. Online, offline, all the time. The power of Twitter is not that I can talk to you, or you to me… it’s that WE can talk to EVERYONE else out there, anytime we want, one conversation at a time. Even if all we have in common is a love of Superbowl commercials, for today, it’s enough. Let’s connect.

What was your moment like? When did social media hook you?

Many thanks to Doug Stewart, a guy dedicated to helping small businesses dominate their space on the web, for asking me to talk with him for a few minutes about effectively using social media and PR together to market businesses. If you’ve never heard me speak, here’s your chance If you have and you’re game for more… bless you, firstly, and secondly, enjoy the interview!

Have a topic you want to see me cover here? I’ve been toying with the idea of breaking my no-video style… what would you most like to see/hear for the first vid post on this blog?

The most overused business phrase from 1995 through about 2005 was “increase shareholder value.” It appeared in more corporate mission statements, vision statements and annual reports than “be environmentally responsible” does today. The worst part wasn’t the monotony (litany?) of corporate speak during those years… it was that the strategy wasn’t really a strategy. It was a result.

The best companies didn’t focus on creating shareholder value. They focused on their customers, products, services… delivering what people wanted, in the way they wanted it, in exchange for fairly valued compensation. The right focus and smart execution drove success, which ultimately increased shareholder value. Regardless of its inclusion in any mission statement, I might add. Do you think employees can all rally around the idea of doing their very best so they can increase the value of stock owned by someone else? Or even their own stock, which generally is a tiny portion of their compensation or retirement? Doubtful. Employees rarely care about shareholders.

Today, companies are urged to be responsive, engaging, transparent and social. Employees tweet or manage facebook pages for themselves and for businesses. There are videos, photos, review sites… so many ways to share information. And the customers are out there… tweeting, facebooking, reviewing, too. The companies who are engaging, who are social, who are transparent (which is just to say, HONEST), build this army of fans or friends. When something negative is posted to the facebook wall, fans defend the brand. When a tweetstorm erupts over someone’s negative experience, the brand responds, the followers defend and retweet, and all is rosy and well in the social sphere. Until… a major crisis hits, and those fans want answers.

They have been trained through interaction to feel like part of the team. Fed a diet of transparency and access, they feel entitled to answers, honesty and truth in short (very short) order. And they are correct. Those fans you’ve been cultivating? They are your businesses’ social shareholders. They have an (emotional) stake in your company. They defend, but they also demand. Just like in the old days of increasing shareholder value, creating raving fans is still a result, not a strategy.

Serve the customers…. in the immortal words of Becky McCray at the recent Get Social conference in OKC, “Customer service is all you’ve got.” She didn’t mean just the basic idea of customer service (being nice, greeting them, sacking the groceries correctly, etc.); she meant truly serving them. Putting those customers first, in all ways. Then, right after you take care of those customers and create those loyal followers, friends and fans, go take care of your social shareholders. They deserve it, too.

My big takeaways from the conference?

The Context / Content stuff is going to come together for another post soon

What do you think? Do you believe in the idea of social shareholders?

Thanks to Blake Jackson… the inspiration for this post came from his opening discussion at Get Social.

In the long ago days – maybe, 25 years ago – news was a daily affair and it was consumed in tightly controlled, pre-packaged formats and chunks. People read their newspapers and watched the local and national nightly news. The truly committed also read a newsweekly or two and maybe even *gasp* the Wall Street Journal or New York Times. What wasn’t reported in the local newspaper on Thursday or on the nightly news that night just wasn’t news until Friday, when it WAS reported. News cycles were more predictable and longer.

Everyone received the same news diet for almost no cost. TV news was over the air and free to anyone with an antenna and a TV set. Local papers averaged $0.25 to $0.50 per day off the shelf and less than $8.00/month on a subscription. Those crazy people who subscribed to Time or the WSJ, well, they were paying some bucks, but they were definitely not the majority of the news-consuming public. People didn’t pay to be informed, not really. And “being informed” simply meant you’d been exposed to the same news stories that the rest of the people around you had consumed through the limited means possible. Essentially,a news baseline existed for most of the population. So essentially, most people weren’t willing to pay to just ante into the knowledge game. And yes, this also meant opinions and info were to a large extent homogenous.

Nothing has changed, even though everything is different.

Think about that… cable news, the internet, blogging, citizen journalism, Twitter, real time news feeds: the methodology of delivery is different and the resources (time, talent, money) dedicated to gathering news are much expanded; but my local news is still available over the air for free and my local newspaper still costs a negligible amount. I may pay for access to the ‘net, but my news sources on it, Twitter, blogs, Google Reader… are all free. And I could go to the library or other public access point and get informed. So, while cycles are shorter and news is nearly ubiquitous, people still are largely unwilling to pay to be informed.

What have people always paid for? To be entertained. And I don’t mean any stupid hybridization like “infotainment” or “edutainment”. In a developed society, people EXPECT to be informed. It’s perceived as a right of the people and the mission of news gathering… like a higher purpose akin to medical care. Why would anyone pay for something they feel is a right? They won’t. With a few rare exceptions, this is why news subscription sites don’t work. Unless the news is specialized enough to be valuable as knowledge currency (insider information status as opposed to generally being informed), it’s not perceived as being worth paying for.

What I wonder is why magazines, who are already in the specialized information curation business, just in an expensive to produce and maintain print format, don’t continue their primary mission (entertainment) and CHARGE for the curation of their own and other’s quality, niche-specific information online. And why newspapers, who are in the public information business, in the same expensive to produce and maintain print format, keep trying to charge me to be generally informed online. If information curation is the next big thing on the internet, the people who’ve been doing it well for decades (think showbiz mags, home decor mags, cooking, parenting, yachting, golf… whatever) should be leading the way.

What do you think? Can magazine companies become curators and charge for content? Would you pay for quality niche-related content? Has that ship sailed… ?

photo credit: Flikr user Bruna Ferrara

If you’ve been there, you know it stinks… and sometimes the worst of it isn’t the financial difficulty, it’s the confidence shattering, ego body blow that does you in.

While I own my business so I can’t technically “get fired,” it feels very much the same when a client decides to go another route and either cuts ties with Crossroads Communications or reduces our role in a project. I’m thankful that it hasn’t happened often, but it did happen this month.

And the worst part is that I know, on some levels, at least, it was the right thing both for the client and for us. It wasn’t the best fit, from the beginning, but it was a referred project and I take the trust someone places in me and in Crossroads Communications when they recommend us very personally.

Some lessons learned….

If the fit isn’t right, it isn’t right. Period. Better to disappoint a little by not taking the project than disappoint a lot through a difficult relationship or less-than-wonderful execution.

If there is criticism, maybe you earned it. Listen carefully, think, take the time to understand what went wrong and why. Fix what you can, apologize sincerely if you need to do so and take those lessons with you to the next relationship.

Unless your mistakes were really core business failures (you didn’t perform work you contracted to do, for instance, or you stole content) don’t dwell on the problem beyond the lesson-learning portion. You’ll just kill your confidence and your drive. No good comes from that for either you or the client.

If the relationship is salvageable, save it. Even if that means the best thing you can do is recommend someone else for the job. Just because this client’s project and needs aren’t a good fit for us right now doesn’t mean they don’t know other businesses who ARE a good fit for our brand of integrated marketing strategy and know-how.

That’s my story… if you’ve been fired from a job or a project and you want to share your experience or your lessons, the comments are yours

My brother is a 29-yr-old police officer in a mid-sized town in Kansas. He is also pretty close to squeaky-clean. Knowing those facts makes the following story even more funny. Trust me.

So…. my brother is in Nashville for an FOP convention (for the uninitiated, that’s the Fraternal Order of Police). While wandering around the sights after the convention wraps, the sole of his boot starts to separate. He, being the McGyver type and also a serious cheapskate, decides to use superglue to reattach the sole. He makes the repair, and satisfied with the results, winds up the trip, packs and heads to the airport.

As he goes through the security checkpoint and goes to pick up his belongings from the xray conveyor belt, he notices his boots are sitting atop the xray box and TSA agents are approaching him. They let him know that they’ve discovered a discrepancy with his shoes… can he explain?

He tells them the story of the separated sole and the resulting repair. They “uh-huh” him, ask for his ticket, photo ID, when his plane is supposed to be taking off and where his flying companion is (“Did someone just drop you off here, sir? Didn’t you arrive with anyone else?”) My brother points out his patiently waiting (and quietly laughing) buddy. More TSA agents arrive and escort my brother and his suspicious shoes to a little room for further questioning.

He tells the separated sole story another 3 times to various agents. He tells them why he’s in town… they “Uh-huh” him again and huddle in the corner of the room, discussing the suspicious boot. An agent explains that they’ve seen a round metal disc inside the sole of the glued boot and this is the problem. My brother, being the resourceful guy he is, volunteers to cut open the boot to retrieve/examine whatever the thing is… saying, “If I dropped a quarter in there, I want it back, of course!” The agents don’t see the humor and tell him they cannot cut it open to look (what if it blows up?) and they can’t ask him to cut it open, either.

Being a police officer, he understands that for what it is… we can’t ask you to do it, but you can do it yourself if you want. So, given that they are in a TSA area, no one has a knife. My brother takes a key and saws at the glue. After a while, an agent procures a knife, cuts a hole in the sole, examines the metal plate inside the boot, and returns the boot to my single-shoed brother.

He made his flight and is determined to repair the boot. But not with superglue and not right before a flight.

The moral of the story? No matter how sensible, logical, well-meaning or well-thought out your actions may be, in the wrong context, they’ll make a TSA agent cut open your shoe.

Always consider the context.

Results from my Social Circle for "Marketing"

I noticed yesterday that new results were on my Google results page (entry on the page, above?).  A bit stalker-ish, I guess, but its the beginnings of mainstreaming the relevant web the way we’ve been talking about on this blog and many others.

Google’s take on Social Search mirrors what I’ve been saying (or my thoughts mirror theirs, I guess… probably should go ahead and assume they thought of this whole relevance thing first… ) for a while: Results from people we’ve chosen to connect to are more relevant to us. Now that Google is showing me results from people I’m connected to online (Twitter, Facebook, Google Reader, etc.) the size and quality of that network matters more than ever.

The search page above is one for “Marketing.” Since I am connected online to a number of talented, prolific, smart and creative marketing people, the results returned for me were a list of awesomeness I could peruse. Blog posts I missed, white papers, web sites, all sorts of goodness. From people I’ve already chosen to listen to. In one place, regardless of how I’m connected to that person and where the content resided originally.

Some of the "Marketing" results from my social circle via Google

If I were only connected to a few great marketers, I’d miss out on some of the great resources I found. Social search filters the web through my definition of relevant and shows me more of who I trust. I am very, very happy.

Where do you see this going? How will it change how businesses view connecting with people? How they treat their web sites? Social results are on the bottom of the coveted first page… maybe the best new way to get first page placement is to be (drum roll…) RELEVANT to your prospect rather than merely the best SEO-’d web site out there. Here’s hoping.

Go for WHY: http://www.flickr.com/photos/oberazzi/318947873/

List posts have their place, and I know they are good for traffic. I’ve written them, too. But our super-connected world and the constant flow of information seems to be driving us to oversimplify complex subjects and interactions. By creating lists. Lots of lists. In some cases, lists of lists.
I’m not against all lists… I believe in a to-do list, a grocery list and have tweeted & retweeted helpful design tip, font and how-to lists. But not all things can (or should) be reduced to a bulleted list.

If it’s a complex subject, treat it with the depth it deserves. A marketing communications plan, encompassing goals, objectives, strategies, tactics and metrics should be more than a list of items. A public relations plan should be more than a list of ideas or publications and an editorial calendar. When we start to work with a new client we ask a lot of questions about their business… not just about what they sell and who they sell it to, but about things like:

Where does your money come from? Revenue? Profit streams and margins?

What is the recent history of the market segment you inhabit? Near future changes or evolutions you expect? Long-term future or potential?

Adjacent markets? Competitive markets?

What factors in the market and within your company’s revenue map do you control or influence?

We augment with our own research and then we tackle goals and objectives, clearly grounded in the business case for what we’re doing. The marketing communications plan addresses how the goals and objectives fit the larger picture of the business and where it wants or needs to go. When you start with a good WHY, all the WHATs and HOWs become much easier to define and later on to sell to the people who have to sign the checks to see them implemented.

It’s Halloween. Part of a three-day celebration (at least, in the Catholic church) called Hallowstide. All Saints’ Day, or All Hallows Day, is November 1st. The eve before is therefore All Hallow’s Evening… All Hallow’s e’en… Hallowe’en. The day after (in case you’re curious) is All Souls’ Day, or Day of the Dead.

Before you start wondering what you’ve gotten yourself into with this post, I’m not writing about theology… this post is about communication and its meaning. Over the past 25 years many Christian denominations have systematically tried to rename and reframe Hallowe’en into a celebration of Fall to avoid demonic overtones. The crazy part of that process is that it brings Hallowe’en much closer to its likely original origins in a dim, dusty, pre-Christian past as a harvest festival and pagan celebration of plenty before winter’s grip took hold.

It amazes me that many of the same people who decry the secularization of Christmas blithely remove the “Hallowed” from Hallowe’en and don’t see it as a similar reframing exercise. Communication, at a basic level, is about the understanding between two people, a sender and a receiver. What is sent (intended) and what is received (perceived) are immaterial… it’s what is understood between them that defines what was actually communicated. Before you decide that a concept, product or message needs “reframing,” be sure you understand its essence and meaning… sometimes what needs reframing isn’t the message, but rather the mindsets of the participants.

And the best way to change mindsets is not through push messaging, but through education and open, honest dialogue.