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 – say 25 years ago – news was a daily affair and it was consumed in tightly controlled, pre-packaged formats. 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 WSJ or NYT. What wasn’t reported in the newspaper on Thursday or on the nightly news that night just wasn’t news until Friday.

Everyone received the same news influx 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. 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. 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.

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.

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.

This is the response received from Saxsum|PR Friday, Oct. 30th, 3:42 PM. My original blog post follows. — Mandy
 
Social media is a very effective communications tool if used strategically and appropriately.  Per our proposal and contract with ODOT (which are both public documents available from the State upon request), we are assisting ODOT develop and implement a strategy to enhance their communications efforts through a Twitter pilot project.  From developing the overall strategy, specific guidelines and performance metrics, to designing and establishing the account and training staff, we are helping ODOT provide the public with the most up-to-date information on state highways and bridges.  We began our work on Oct. 6 and are continuing to provide counsel, evaluate this new means of communications and recommend next steps. 
 
At Saxum, we take pride in providing value-added services to our clients and believe we have and continue to add value for ODOT through this project. 

——— original post ———-
FACTS:

ODOT paid $7,500 for SaxsumPR to set up their account and “spend about 10 days” with their employees teaching them how to use the service.
After 2 weeks, they had 552 followers
ODOT tweets traffic delays, congestion and other traffic issues.
Saxsum “will be helping ODOT track their effectiveness and track their Twitter following”
Saxsum says the account is going to save ODOT money through manpower savings: Not staffing phones like they would otherwise, not sending people to congested areas as they would be doing otherwise.

See KFOR’s news story here:

Twitter commentary was quite negative over the expenditure, as evidenced by tweets with the #okdot hashtag. When @saxsumPR got involved, hours after the controversy started, they promised to e-mail me their comments after conferring with their client. So far, nothing… and then they responded to a Twitter/Social Media crisis with a TV interview. Ouch… and I’m still waiting on that e-mail. Granted, it’s only Tuesday, but there’s been some time for a public response, as evidenced by the interview on KFOR.

One of my biggest challenges with this is that the main argument of Saxsum of value provided is dollars being saved because ODOT’s staffing requirement is now reduced through sharing information via Twitter.

How large is Oklahoma’s driving public?

There are 2,819,781 people 16 and over in Oklahoma… and ODOT is responsible for providing all of them with transportation related information. Unless ODOT is the most retweeted Twitter account EVER (and they’re not), 552 followers does not mean ODOT can reduce staff and still keep the same level of service to the other 2,819,229 people they serve.
I believe Twitter is a valuable information-sharing tool. I believe ODOT is right to attempt to share information this way. I believe planning for success and sometimes paying for help achieving it is necessary for any business to achieve its goals. And I don’t believe that, based on what I know at this point, the taxpayers were best served by this level of expenditure.

If additional information becomes available, I may revise my opinion…. in the meantime… please share yours!

This post is inspired by a conversation with @billhandy and @freshpeel on Twitter, and by Bill’s (lengthy, but good) post about the science behind communities.

My key takeaways/thoughts on the subject are:

Bigger isn’t necessarily better
The ties in your community matter
Work yourself out of a job if you want to matter long-term

Bigger isn’t necessarily better because the value of a community must be defined through a particular set of lenses. Think about the value of your home. The key question is… value to whom? We all think about value of a home as the price we’d get if we sold it to another person interested in living in it. What about the value of your home as potential raw material for a new project? The value of just the land your home is on, to a non-residential user? The value of the goods/furnishing inside? The lens used to evaluate value makes a difference. You need to define the purpose of a community before you can assess its value. If the purpose is to create “a community of bicycle enthusiasts” you need to re-think. You’ve defined who you’re after (bicycle enthusiasts) but not WHY they’ve come and WHAT you hope they’ll do for or be to each other. A better purpose (lens) would be seeking to create “A place where bicycling enthusiasts can share knowledge about the best trails/rides so others can discover and enjoy them, too.”

NOW we have something… we know we’re seeking current riders to anchor the community (new riders would be welcome, but won’t necessarily have the foundational knowledge about best trails/rides to share). We know we’ll need to try to build that community in a space where sharing and organizing information, including potentially maps, photos, written descriptions, even user calendars, will be easy and seamless. We know that search/discovery within the community will be important. AND… if we build it smartly, we can define value to potential marketers of trail-proven cycles, gear, lodging and food/supplies.

ALSO… we have a community built on shared, strong affinity for not just a hobby (cycling) but a particular aspect/segment of that hobbyist community (longer rides/trails/trips). The strength of the ties in your community matter… they’ll drive longevity and advocacy. If people self-identify as belonging to that group, our carefully constructed place should give them a portal to other like-minded individuals and space to share their passion. They’ll seek out others to join who also share that passion if they love the space.

The group’s owner/moderator won’t matter… the group’s own cohesion will serve as glue. If you successfully work yourself out of a job building the community, the value of that community as a sellable, marketable thing increases. “Ownership” can be transferred easily since the group’s members feel ownership… it’s their space. If the community remains a hub-and-spoke connection (each person individually connected to the center, but not many community-member interactions) it’s in danger of becoming irrelevant, regardless of how large it is at the moment. Miley Cyrus had a huge Twitter following. She quit Twitter. Other than tweets lamenting the fact that she’s gone, that community is fast becoming irrelevant on Twitter.

So… to wrap it all up:

Know why you’re building a community, regardless of the venue.

Have a clear purpose and direction and take deliberate actions so you attract the right kind of self-elected community members.

Make it a place where people are there for the THE BIG IDEA so the community won’t falter if you need to back away.

What do you think… how do you best build community?