(Photo credit: Phill Carrick)
Monday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal included highlights from the Journal’s annual “CEO Council,” a high-profile gathering in Washington where corporate and government leaders converge to discuss solutions to the global challenges ahead.

To read the entire section, click here. You’ll find plenty of good insights on the economy, education, energy, and the environment. Specific to this blog’s interests, the quote below from Gail Kelly (pictured), CEO of Australian financial giant Westpac, caught our attention.

Kelly emphasized that large banks must work hard to regain the public’s trust.

The weekend’s papers have been full of stories about England’s ‘failing hospitals’, which, despite being ranked ‘good’ by the official regulator, the Care Quality Commission, have been deemed poor by Dr Foster, the respected independent consultancy.

Two questions emerge from this coverage: 1) Does any of this matter? And 2) What can hospitals do about it any way?

The answer to the first question is a definite yes.  The coverage acts to undermine public confidence in the official regulator, the hospitals themselves, and in government ministers struggling to justify billions of pounds in extra spending, pumped into the health service over the last ten years.  If public confidence is pushed beyond breaking point, sudden, dramatic and potentially messy reform will become a political imperative.

So, what should hospital trusts be doing?

The first point is that they must put – and be seen to put – their patients first.  Hospitals might think they do this anyway, but it doesn’t always look this way to Joe Public.  Outsiders too often hear the blah blah blah of Whitehall management jargon and the me me me of another hospital trust contemplating its own navel.  Trusts need to change their language and – in some cases – their priorities.

Second, trusts should be considering how to seize the initiative.  Instead of defending the status quo – who believes the current inspection regime is perfect? – trusts should be suggesting improvements that will genuinely put patients at the centre of the system.

Third, trusts need to build coalitions of support within their communities and beyond.  Just like people, every organisation needs friends, particularly in times of scrutiny or challenge.  The key to success is for hospital trusts to build their network of friends beyond the circle of the ‘usual suspects’, a place where too many hospitals spend too much of their time.

The dam has not yet burst; hospital trusts still have time to put things right.  The weekend’s newspapers should, however, serve as a reminder that pressure is building.

This post was written by Regester Larkin Director, Andrew Fairburn.

Web 2.0?  No problem!  Marketing your business to the over 80 Million blogs on the internet may seem like a daunting task, so why not let the experts handle it?

It’s inevitable – it’s the 21st century and people are going to talk about your brand online. Learn how Travel Spike can track conversation about your brand, good and bad, with our Social Media Monitoring and Online Reputation Management tools!

“Fry warns on social media” – yes, it’s PRWeek again. (Or, if you’re in the States, it’s PRWeek – but monthly. Of course.)

Englands most treasured national treasure, the warm, mellow, avuncular and perhaps, even, a little tweedy, Stephen Fry (for all those of my faithful blog snorkellers who are not familiar with this afternoon-tea-and-crumpet of a man – he’s a middle-aged gay comedian) has pronounced on social media. This is the same man who made a complete Twit of himself – he had a Call-me-Dave moment with a surfeit of Tweets – not many weeks ago, so I suppose he has the experience to back his pronouncements up. Anyway PRWeek pounced on the pronouncement (I’m channelling the spirit of Stephen here) and published it (issue dated November 27 2009 – if you haven’t seen it, go out and buy one for £4.22, or whatever spurious cover price they’re featuring this week, it’s a collector’s item, in that there’s not going to be a print version for much longer). (Apparently.)

Anyway, summarising wildly, dear old baggy, arch, loveable Stephen has (apparently, again) ‘warned communicators of the risks inherent in using social media as a new type of PR channel’. (Welcome to the party Stephen! Better late than never, I suppose.) He went on to say (according to t’Week) “All new means of communication have been derided and decried because they are seen as encouraging demagoguery of the worst kind. It may be that there will be dark days when social media are seen to cause genuine damage and even death by inflaming people wrongly.’

By which I think he means that every new type of communication that comes along gets hi-jacked by the snake oil salesmen and the charlatans, and, if a majority of people continue to insist on using social media as an extension of the nasty, murky dark bit in their heads, then there could be fisticuffs.

And it’s not that he’s wrong – rather that what he’s saying is so dreadfully obvious and has been done to death on fora around the world. As Mr Fry is an enormously clever man, I can only take from this that there is nothing more interesting, relevant or current to be said about social media.

Schools should introduce lessons to teach young people about protecting their online privacy and reputation, according to a survey. (Also covered here)

Almost seven out of 10 adults (69%) said compulsory lessons should be introduced as part of the national curriculum, amid fears children could be jeopardising their future with posts on sites such as Facebook, Bebo, MySpace and Twitter.

Nearly half of respondents (48%) were concerned that children could damage their university or career prospects by posting inappropriate photos or comments, according to the YouGov poll of 2,050 UK adults. But just four out of 10 adults (40%) checked what their children or younger relatives were posting online at least once a week, the survey found. The survey was commissioned by the digital communications agency Halpern Cowan,  for its Digital Literacy Report 2009.

The survey also found that 31% of 18 to 24-year-olds had posted pictures or comments online they would not want their bosses or colleagues to see. And a similar number (32%) had posted something online which they later regretted. Many of the adults in this age group had also posted potentially sensitive information such as date of birth (67%), telephone number (26%), and address (7%). Asked whether they researched people online ahead of meetings or interviews, 5% of adults across all age ranges said “always” while 9% said “regularly” and 19% said “sometimes”.

Oh dear, oh dear.  For several years now, Dubai has been an unstoppable force of self-marketing – raising its brand awareness beyond that of cities thousands of years older.  But it’s often never been particularly clear what Dubai stands for – perhaps the difference between brand recognition and true reputation.  Well now Dubai has spent nearly 4 days in the international headlines all over the world.  And for all the wrong reasons.

I don’t profess to be an expert on financial PR and how and when markets should be alerted to bad news.  But it’s absolutely clear that despite the plethora of blue-chip banking and public relations advisers that Dubai has retained over the past 12 months of financial market turmoil, Dubai spectacularly misjudged its announcements about Dubai World’s restructuring and Nakheel’s debts last Wednesday (and Thursday, and Friday … as the clarifications continued to trickle out).

In reputation management terms, perhaps the greatest ‘learning’ (dreadful word) from the rollercoaster ride of external perceptions of Dubai over the past year, is that whatever you say must be supported by proof points.  Dubai’s rapid rise from unheard-of Arab trading port to international brand recognised by every London cabbie was based largely on the ‘proof points’ of its tourism offering – a 7 star hotel (whatever that really means), a fantastic airline, international sporting events, year-round sunshine etc.

But ever since the credit crunch started to impact Dubai last October, there has been a dangerous lack of proof points.  No amount of ‘positive messages’ was ever going to calm investors’ nerves when so few statistics were ever provided to back them up.  And why would anyone have wanted to put themselves forward as a senior official spokesperson for Dubai when even a rookie journalist would have torn holes in the positive assertions thanks to the lack of supporting evidence.  So the vacuum of official information has been filled with reams of speculation and rumour, such that when a few facts did start to emerge on Wednesday evening, analysts all over the world assumed the very worst.

Brand Dubai may have finally achieved what it wanted – global recognition.  But how sad that for want of transparency and honest proof points, that recognition will in many quarters be something along the lines of: “Oh yes, Dubai, I’ve heard of that place – it’s bust isn’t it?”.

In my experience, the true leaders are those who do not assume they have all the answers.  People may expect them to have them all, but they know better.

What does that mean for your business?  Well, it’s pretty straight forward.

A good boss will assume that his or her team have important and diverse insights and experiences that can enhance relationships with key stakeholders … customers, vendors, clients, etc.

That’s right – you have a team of good people working together, so see what they think.  Their different opinions will inform your decision, if you value and embrace them.

Face it, it’s been a while since the boss “owned” each and every customer relationship.  Chances are, someone else knows what’s really going on in that vendor’s head.  What “they’re” thinking may surprise you.

You pay your employees a lot of money to do what they do, so talk with them, listen to them, ask for their advice and help.  They’ll respond, especially if they trust you and know you trust them.

So many answers to business challenges can be solved by asking employees what they think and what they know.  Too few bosses bother to ask.

Post by Nick Vehr – 11.28.09

STATS: Each Negative Social Media Comment Costs 30 Customers.

Research by Convergys Corp. has shown that a negative customer review on YouTube, Twitter or Facebook can cost a company about 30 customers.

Here’s the math:
Each remark/comment would be viewed by an average of 45 people and about two-third of them would avoid the brand that was being criticized (45 x 2/3 = 30 customers).

Source: Bloomberg

We saw how social media has transformed the way we communicate and consume information. Marketing is no longer in a company’s full control. It is now largely dependent on what people say about it; especially with the rise of social media.

You can lose but you can also gain!

30 customers are lost when a company gets a negative comment on social sites. But would a company gain 30 customers if it earns a positive comment instead?

I would probably think so. It just highlights the importance of tracking the social media buzz surrounding your brand.

So what can you do to make sure you are on top of what people are saying about your company on the social media sites. Well aside from searching on each individual social network, a good place to start is by setting up a free and simple tool known as Google Alerts.

Check my previous two article on Google Alerts to learn how it works and also how to easily set up your company with an account.

***Don’t do it yet though, finish this article first then come to the links for the other articles ***

How it works

http://marketing4recruiters.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/who%E2%80%99s-talking-about-you-your-recruitment-agency-online-find-out-for-free-reputation-management-using-google-alerts/

How to set it up

http://marketing4recruiters.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/how-to-%E2%80%93-use-google-alerts-for-online-reputation-management/

Once you’ve got yourself set up on with the google alerts monitoring you’ll start receiving emails about mentions of you and your company online. Start with Google Alerts and then consider searching Twitter and Facebook to keep up to date with online mentions of your brand. Look out for future articles from me teaching you how to automate this next phase of online reputation management.

Cheers,

Kohlben Vodden

Marketing4recruiters

Email: Marketing4recruiters@gmail.com

Blog: http://www.marketing4recruiters.wordpress.com

Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/marketing4recs

LinkedIn Group: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=2317988&trk=hb_side_g

Facebook Page: http://bit.ly/CH2bz

Side-wiki is a newish tool from Google that allows members of the public to place unmoderated comments onto a web page using the google toolbar. Every company needs to start monitoring this new tool,which theoretically can open a pandora’s box. Comments could range from the very positive, to the down-right insulting although, it is too early to say if it could have a real effect on a company’s brand image as it can only be accessed and viewed if you have the Google toolbar and you can only add a comment through a Google login and username. Both however, are very easy to get.

If Google starts indexing comments as part of their search result list, then there could be significant issues.

Below are a few high profile names that have been hit by negative or off-message side wiki posts which include the Labour and Conservative Parties’ home pages. The Liberal-Democrat website has no comments at all.

My particular favourite are the comments on the Sun.

My advice to all organisations, post something on your side-wiki now. You can’t stop people from making comments, but youcan at least try and push them past the fold. There is no way to moderate either.

Labour Party side-wiki comment

Conservative Party side-wiki comment

The Sun side-wiki comment

Tesco side-wiki comment

Walmart side-wiki comment

Another industry questions the usage of social media.

http://www.lifescienceleader.com/index.php?option=com_jambozine&layout=article&view=page&aid=3922

It looks like an opportunity to me, especially when momnitoring adverse events (sometimes referred to incorrectly as “side effects”)  in patients using the meds.  Even bad news might still be OK.  Adverse events are usually bad news for drug companies.  But if those are reported in real time in controlled environments such as private tweets, the company has a chance to react.  Historically, pharma companies are too big to turn on a dime.  They don’t stop Phase III trials unless there’s a tremendous reason to do so.  Response times to these events MUST decrease in the 21st century. Profitability depends on it.  Accountability depends on it.  The public will not accept pharma companies who fail to respond promptly to what amounts to ignoring adverse events.

But HIPAA has yet to surface on the subject…

-Tim Tucker

Must……..stop…………reading………..PRWeek…………..gnnnnnnnngh………………..

Morbid fascination, that’s what it is. Anyway, there I am flicking through November 20th’s offering, doing my best to suck what little value I can from the less-than-compelling mix of not-news, hagiography and terrifying light-weightedness (tell me it’s not so) and my eye is grabbed by the ‘From The Editor Column’.

“Striking a Balance Between Print and Web” is its title. It goes on to inform me that I will be noticing a few changes to the ‘Week – cutting news pages and and adding extra space for analysis. (Of what, exactly, pray?) They’re also going to dedicate a page in the magazine to content featured online – which has to imply that there’s not that much news or analysis to fill the pages that they have.

In fairness – it all makes sense. The website is rapid reaction, more easily updated and attracts far more viewers. The print version is out-of-date by the time it’s published and has never really contained the sort of thought-provoking, enduring, educational and value-providing content that would justify its existence.

What all this is clearly leading to – especially given Haymarket’s current title rationalisation – is the closure of the print version of PRWeek, although the editorial team are doing their utmost to hide it behind the smoke and mirrors of increased analysis and assertions that the ‘industry’s bible’, which has ‘enjoyed a major redesign’ is and ‘remains the mainstay of our offering’.

Well, no it won’t, beyond, I’d say, January 2010 – unless it genuinely can reinvent itself and become the ‘industry’s bible’ – and by this I mean something that sets standards, leads the way and provides the industry (at all levels) with stuff we can use.

For example, recently it was reported that very few European businesses had crisis management plans in place. In this very issue of PRWeek, there’s four pages dedicated to ‘crisis comms’ -case histories and commentary from industry pundits. Good start. But.

Wouldn’t it have been a better idea to create a guide to creating a crisis plan? Outline the basics, so that everyone knows where to start? Show the differences between plans for global organisations and local organisations? Demonstrate the potential consequences, the signs to look out for and how to counter them? Suggest a process for employing a crisis consultant? Provide examples of best practice desk-top exercises and full-blown crisis plan trials?

Wouldn’t this be significantly more useful? More useful than yet another Thought Leader supplement, but probably attracting a similar amount of advertising? Useful enough to merit a print version, and useful enough to motivate people to keep it on file and share it with others? Hmmmm?

I don’t want to see any print media disappear as a consequence of the rise of the internet and online content. I do understand, however – and PRWeek almost certainly does as well – that unless print media offers something that t’internet can’t (and I’m guessing that this includes in-depth consideration of topics and issues) then disappear it will.

Luckily, the communications industry has a myriad topics and issues that are ripe for this sort of treatment.

The front page of this morning’s Wall Street Journal (11.23.09) shares an article titled, “Volunteers Log Off As Wikipedia Ages.”

Is it, perhaps, really an article about the settling, or maturation, of new media? 

For cave dwellers, Wikipedia began as an, “online free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.”  It began nine years ago and now has about 325 million monthly visitors, according to the article.  I use it regularly for this blog and as a general resource.

The focus of the article is the fact that Wikipedia, in the first three months of 2009, experienced a loss of 49,000 online volunteer editors.  During the same period the previous year, the comparable number was 4,900.

To me, the article represents what I and others think is occuring with new media in general … a settling or maturation.  Here’s what I mean.

We all know the pendulum for hot new products swings way wide before it settles back in.  So, too, for social media. We are witnessing it with Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube and countless others.  How long ago was it that MySpace was going to take over the world?  Who do you know that is actively using it now?

Does that mean social media – or Wikipedia – is dying?  Of course not.  I think it does mean that it is finding its place, it is settling in, it is maturing as most products and services always do.

There is little question that social media (new media, the internet, Web 2.0 – whatever you want to call it)  has forever changed the way many people communicate.  At some level, it may have even profoundly influenced the way many people manage their personal and professional relationships. 

There is little question that it has forever changed our professional - strategic communications or, what many call, public relations.

But, the pendulum is swinging back towards a point of equilibrium, or at least to a more measureable , natural and sustainable sway.

That’s what I thought when I read this a.m.’s article about Wikipedia?  What did you think?

Post by Nick Vehr – 11.23.09

By Colin N. Clarke – It’s truly amazing what marketing can accomplish when done right. I recently attended a performance of the musical The Lion King and simply had to marvel at what the marketing juggernaut Disney has done to create this “brand.”

Who would have thought that an animated movie could spawn such an incredible revenue generating franchise more than 15 years later! Of course Disney took us through the sequels and spinoffs, the merchandising and figurines, the soundtracks and re-releases. But after 15 years you’d think they might have exhausted the potential of that little old cartoon. Anyone else, but not Disney.

Disney Theatrical Productions has built a brand around the name The Lion King with ongoing productions taking place in New York City, Las Vegas, Paris, Hamburg, Tokyo, and London. In addition there are two touring companies settling into major cities across the United States.

Here’s a glimpse into the revenue generating power that has been built around The Lion King brand. By my calculation, a sold out week (9 performances by a touring company) in a 2,000 seat theatre can generate more than $1.3 million of revenue on ticket sales alone! Multiply that revenue generating power across multiple performance locations worldwide and you can quickly see how Disney has turned that little 1994 animation into a mega BRAND.

So what has Disney done right to maintain the appeal and longevity of a brand that should have run the course of its productive life long ago? Let’s have a look at what Disney has done, and what you can too to generate long-term affinity for your business’ brand.

1) Understand your audiences – Their interests, what motivates their buying behavior and why they choose you.

2) Appeal to the influencers – (For Disney, parents). They need to find interest in your brand and feel safe in recommending you or approving a purchase.

3) Manage your reputation – Your brand must be trustworthy and unblemished. Keep tabs on what others say about your brand and be prompt in respectfully correcting misrepresentations.

4) Be consistent – Day-in, day-out, deliver on your brand promise, maintain your brand standards and give your audience a reason to remember you (positively of course!).

5) Be innovative – Monitor how your audiences’ interests and expectations evolve and deliver new products, services or information of VALUE that is representative of your brand.

These principles help build Disney’s The Lion King into a brand far beyond an animated movie. Follow these 5 steps to build strength and longevity for your brand, and who knows, you just might create the next marketing juggernaut.

It’s like running a red light, only to rear-end a slow-moving school bus full of orphans and hungry kittens.

For the Calgary Flames, a sneaky bit of queue-jumping has exploded into a public relations horror, leaving the team to explain why millionaire hockey players deserve what shivering children and seriously ill Albertans do not.

So how did these different sports teams respond to this unique controversy?

The Flames released a statement and answered questions but never acknowledged any wrongdoing.

 “We sought counsel and guidance on this matter and determined it appropriate given the facts available at the time,” the statement said pointing out it had all been arranged through Alberta Health Services.

Flames’ president Ken King was adamant in his defence of the players saying, “Our players did not seek to avoid a line-up. They didn’t ask for special attention, they followed the direction of our physicians, they followed the organization’s direction.”

King is adamant that the Flames organization believed there was plenty of vaccine to go around, even as they filed down to the private location where their personal supply of vaccine was waiting.

It’s unfortunate no one in the Flames group reads either of Calgary’s major daily newspapers, which shared front-page headlines that day, warning of the looming flu vaccine shortage.

“Shot Shortage Warning,” was this paper’s bold black-and-white headline on Friday, when the Flames and their families were enjoying VIP vaccine treatment.

Still, the Flames boss says no one knew of the impending clinic closures.

King admits the team was skipping past long lines at Calgary’s five public clinics, but the team had no clue Albertans might soon be denied vital vaccination.

“We were pretty comfortable knowing we were not disrupting people — the lineup notwithstanding — but under no circumstances are we going to take a shot away from somebody,” said King.

“If anybody said you can have this, but that’s going to mean somebody else isn’t going to, that’s a whole different move — at the time, they were saying high-risk people should get it and all others who want it can, too.

“I can guarantee you, if that was the case, then we wouldn’t have taken it.”

On Saturday, the Flames held a meeting with season ticket holders “to answer their questions about members of the team receiving the H1N1 vaccine ahead of high-risk Albertans.”

Flames president and CEO Ken King said he wanted to hold the meeting so season ticket holders could get all the facts about what happened.

The Vancouver Sun spoke with media relations officials for the many Canadian NHL teams:

Ottawa Senators spokesman Phil Legault also said no players have received the vaccine. “We are waiting in line just like everyone else here in Ottawa,” he said. “They’ll wait in line until it’s their turn.”J.J. Hebert, media director for the Edmonton Oilers, said players are waiting to be vaccinated. “At this point we are still waiting direction from our team medical staff,” he said.

A spokesman for the Vancouver Canucks said the team is “taking every precaution possible to protect our staff and players from illness. . . We will provide players and staff with the option of flu shots at the appropriate time.”

What are your thoughts? How should the Flames respond to the public outrage surrounding their H1N1 shots?

Well, in my opinion, it would help if the Flames could make amends by playing a game for charity and donating the proceeds to Sick Kids’ hospitals. They have a history of working with children’s hospitals and would remind the public of the good charitable work they already do. They should also publicly apologize for their actions instead of shifting blame on others… just a thought.

"You can't handle the truth!"

How often have any of us as professional communicators had clients who are critically and, perhaps, maniacally focused on external audiences to the detriment of their own folks?

Even worse, what about those clients who worry that employees, “can’t handle the truth!”

The best businesses – whether B2C or B2B – understand that healthy, open and transparent long term relationships with clients are the key to sustained business growth and profitability. 

Most CEOs or CMOs do not “own” the relationship with each and every client.  The people who work for them do.  So, the bosses need to commit to maintaining healthy, open and transparent relationships with their employees.

The folks interacting with clients need to know what’s going on in and around the business so the clients know they are dealing with informed professionals working in a culture that values them. 

Importantly, employees deserve to know the good, the bad and the ugly, so long as sharing such information does not jeopardize the the company’s competitive positioning.  Some companies, especially privately held ones, share such information even if it does.

Employees (colleagues, associates, whatever you call them) are the most important asset of any company.  Invest in them.  Trust them.  Help them to be better professionals. 

Relationships – personal and professional – are based on trust.  It’s not rocket science!

If your team trusts you, the people with whom they are dealing will trust them. 

That’s the best way to retain and grow your business.

Post by Nick Vehr – 11.21.09

It’s lonely at the top.

That’s what Goldman Sachs must be thinking after the visceral public reaction to last week’s announcement that it would donate $500 million to small business education, training, and investment programs.

Few companies could incite global hostility for giving away $500 million in a recession, but that’s exactly what happened to Goldman.  And companies that are serious about reputation management will pay attention.

Here’s a sampling of the sentiment that greeted Goldman’s announcement last week:

“Goldman and its peers need to practice humility and contrition for an extended period, rather than seeking image-buffing headlines with token gestures,” wrote Bloomberg’s Mark Gilbert after Goldman’s announcment.

The New York Times editorial board dismissed the initiative as “crumbs from [Goldman's] table…motivated by its public relations problems.”  

In the most vivid description of Goldman to date, Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi compared the investment firm in July to “a giant vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity.”

How did we get here?

Goldman has endured years of withering criticism that large financial institutions sparked the economic downturn, profited from billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts, and compounded the struggles of ordinary Americans by restricting small business’ access to capital.  That Goldman issued $15 billion in employee bonuses this year months after taking $10 billion in public funding hasn’t help change that narrative.  

Will Goldman ever be perceived as a corporate angel? Not likely. Earning $3.4 billion every three months doesn’t get you much sympathy no matter how sincere your philanthropic efforts may be, and last week’s announcement appeared to be an acknowledgment that the criticism was taking its toll. 

Thus, few companies need a reputation recovery strategy more than Goldman, and there are lessons to be gleaned from the manner in which the announcement was made.

First, the company announced that it would be partnering with Warren Buffett and Columbia Business School Dean R. Glenn Hubbard in the small business initiative. The inclusion of respected economic minds outside Goldman lends independent credibility to a program that critics want to pigeon-hole as a shallow PR stunt manufactured by Goldman.

Second, Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein last week did what few leaders do when their company has earned the public’s hostility: he apologized. On the day of the announcement, Blankfein told an audience of corporate directors that Goldman, “participated in things that were clearly wrong and have reason to regret. We apologize.”

We blogged a long time ago that telling the truth and getting reputable friends to vouch for you can go a long way in a public relations crisis.  Goldman seems to get it.

Third, Goldman is running a reputation marathon, not a sprint.  Trying to win the public’s affection overnight after the economic trauma of 2008 is unrealistic.  The visceral reaction by Goldman’s critics last week had little to do with helping small businesses (hardly an objectionable idea) and everything to do with Goldman’s past. 

Consultant Peter Firestein put it best:

“That Goldman has allowed its reputation to sink so low as to make half a billion seem like a token causes damage far beyond the bank itself. It may undermine public sentiment toward truly needed financial entities for a long time to come.”

Goldman’s reputation recovery strategy cannot be measured in terms of weeks or months, but rather in years.  Nor should it be measured by when (if ever) accolades are thrown in Goldman’s direction, but rather by how quickly Goldman’s critics fade into the background.  

Fourth, the only strategy that would be more hamrful to Goldman’s reputation would be to do nothing - to assume that the public’s short term anger make any mea culpa or long term gesture futile. 

Goldman would be wise to look past last week’s headlines.  The opening salvo of cynicism was inevitable.  Now they must focus on the other 25 miles in this marathon. That means demonstrating over a sustained period of time a credible strategy to minimize the negative consequences of its business practices and maximizing the many positive benefits.

The measure of last week’s announcement will come into focus in the years ahead as small businesses reap the benefits of targeted financing, better higher education curricula, improved management training, and leadership networking that Goldman has now made possible.  As the bottom lines of those small businesses recover, perhaps some of the glow – even a little bit – will rub off on Goldman’s reputation as well.

Never let it be said, that just because I don’t believe in it (as a valid or valuable communications and marketing tool) that I don’t share the opposing viewpoint for the benefit and edification of you, my dear, dear blog snorkellers. So here is the script of a presentation given recently at an events industry event. (Yes, you read that right.) As I read it, I thought – well, if I HAD to try and convince someone of the value of social media, this is the sort of thing I’d use. I will issue a health warning though. It doesn’t, at any point, answer the questions ‘how much will I have to invest to leverage social media to my advantage’ and ‘what sort of return can I expect on my investment’. This is OK for the events industry, who have always struggled with ROI, and just keep talking until people forget what it was they wanted to know, but in other, more focused sectors, this might be an issue. Make up your own mind.

“WHAT THE HELL IS SOCIAL MEDIA?   

Social media is “an umbrella term that defines the various activities that integrate technology, social interaction, and the construction of words, pictures, videos, and audio.”

More simply it just describes the millions of conversations people are having with each other across the world 24/7 

Why the HELL should I care?  Here are 10 really, really good reasons why…  
REASON #1   

Because social media is now the number one online activity beating porn and personal email to the top spot. 
(Nielsen Wire)  
REASON #2   

Because 2/3 of the global internet population visit social networks.

(Nielsen, Global Faces & Networked Places) 
REASON #3   

Because time spent on social networks is growing at 3x the overall internet rate, accounting for 10% of all internet time.

(Nielsen, Global Faces & Networked Places) 
REASON #4   

Because online including social media has become the most influential source in helping consumer make purchasing decisions.

(Weber Shandwick Inline Research)
REASON #5   

Because social media is like word of mouth on steroids.
REASON #6   

Because social media is democratizing communications. Big time.

“Technology is shifting the power away from the editors, the publishers, the establishment, the media elite. Now it’s the people who are in control.”

(Rupert Murdoch, Global Media Entrepreneur)  
REASON #7   

Because millions of people are creating content for the social web.

Your competitors are already there. Your customers have been there for a long time. If your business isn’t putting itself out there, it ought to be.

(Business Week, February 19, 2009)
REASON #8
The next 3 billion consumers will access the internet from a mobile device.   Google Already 80% of Twitter usage is on mobile devices.  People update anywhere, anytime. 
Imagine what that means for bad customer experiences!       
(Mashable.com) 
REASON #9   

In almost all cases social media is free.  All it will cost you is time.
REASON #10   

Because social media is hell of a force to be reckoned with.
Years to reach 50 million users:  
Radio – 38 years
TV – 13 years
Internet – 4 years
iPod – 3 years
Facebook added 175 million users between in less than 11 months 
The phenomenal growth of Facebook:
January 2009: 150 million users
April 2009: 200 million users
July 2009: 250 million users
September 2009: 300 million users
Friday, November 6th, 2009: 325 million users
That’s half a million users every single day
(Mashable.com) 

If Facebook were a country it would be bigger than the USA and the 3^rd largest in the World  
1.                         China
2.                         India
3.                         Facebook
4.                         United States
5.                         Indonesia
6.                         Brazil
7.                         Pakistan
8.                         Bangladesh
9.                         Russia
10.                      Nigeria     

13 hours:  the amount of video uploaded to YouTube every minute.

412.3 years: the length of time it would take to view every YouTube video.

1 billion: the number of YouTube videos viewed per day.

3.06 billion: The number of photos archived on Flickr.com as of June 2009. That’s roughly 1 photo per every 2 people on the planet.

1382%: The year on year growth rate of Twitter users from February 2008 to February 2009.

3,000,000: the average number of Tweets sent per day on twitter.com

5.4 billion: The number of twitter messages sent since launch
5 billion: The number of minutes spent on Facebook each day
1 billion: The amount of content (web links, news stories, blog posts, notes, photos, etc.) shared each week on Facebook.

Social media is not yet another channel for broadcasting bullsh*t.

You see, it’s supposed to be a dialogue, not a monologue.

One way marketing has had its day! 

Stop thinking “campaigns”. Start thinking “conversations”.

Listening first, selling second 
Unfortunately most companies are still treating social media like just another marketing channel when in fact it’s so much more…

1: public relations

2: customer service

3: loyalty-building

4: collaboration

5: networking

6: thought-leadership

And yes, customer acquisition, too.  

If your product sucks, social media won’t fix it.

However, if your customer service sucks, social media can help.

If your repeat business sucks, social media can help.

If your company’s word of mouth sucks, social media can help.

Social media playtime is over – its time to get serious!     
Never forget the basic rules…

Rule #1: listen – Google alerts and Tweetdeck (for starters)

Rule #2: engage

Rule #3: measure – audience, engagement , loyalty, influence action (metrics should map to goals)

Now go out there and get social!  Because this is only the beginning.”

A friend of mine was eager to share her recent experience at a local nail salon. Not because it was a great experience. To the contrary, actually.

Seizing an opportunity to escape from the day to day routine of being a mother to two-year old twins, a wife and full time financial advisor, she slipped into a salon for a brief moment of pampering. This wasn’t a spectacular spa retreat, just a strip mall nail salon. There was nothing special or memorable about the experience. No fluffy white robe, glass of Chardonnay, candles or rose petals. Just a simple pedicure and manicure in a room full of tables and chairs. Then, something extraordinary happened. She got the bill.  SIXTY DOLLARS!!???

After recovering from the immediate shock, she confronted the owner. ‘I was expecting $30, not $60. I’m sorry, but I don’t see how you can build your clientele with these kinds of prices?  Nobody is going to pay that more than once, if they don’t have to.’ The owner proceeded to explain how she had to raise her prices because the landlord raised her rent.  My friend was appalled.   She immediately identified several ways the owner could enhance the experience by creating a “resort” feel that would make the price worth paying.  She would gladly pay more if she got more, but as it stands, she’ll never go back.

Customer stories like this won’t pay your rent.  Do you know what your customers are saying about you?  What are you doing to influence them to tell the story you want them to tell?  Isn’t your reputation worth doing something?

The New Jersey advertising agency of the future will have to adapt to the changing ways of the business world.  Instead of distinguishing themselves between specific disciplines, such as just a reputation management company, or just a database marketing company, or just a website development company, or just a mobile marketing company, New Jersey advertising agencies of the future will have to broaden their horizons. They will have to become full on all-solutions marketing companies. A recent post on a great blog called Actionable Insights by Covario explains in full detail why a simple advertising agency may be a thing of the past. In the future, a marketing solutions company will be the answer to a business’s problems.

You can read the full blog entry here.

Social business networking is the need for modern businesses. Easy Submission offers result oriented social business networking services that can transform your sales and revenues.

Brighton, CO (Press Release – November 17, 2009) – It’s a proven fact that online Social business networking and social media marketing campaigns has great impact over the popularity of any business. One can transform their existing businesses and set new standards for others by effective use of online business networking and mass media marketing services.

Easy Submission, a subsidiary of Easy Media Network offers result oriented social business networking services. Business owners or webmasters (owning E-Commerce websites) can get benefits of these result oriented social business networking services to boost their sales and revenues.

Nowadays the trio of Facebook, Twitter and MySpace has evolved as the most beneficial online promotion tools. Social Media Optimization services offered by Easy Submission involve all these promotional approaches including Facebook Marketing (creating Facebook profiles, fan pages, groups and adding friends) and online promotions through tweets (targeting potential customers with tweet updates periodically).

The benefits of social media optimization in online business networking cannot be overlooked. Ignoring its importance in promotion of any business will keep them away from majority of potential customers that are users of social networking websites (Facebook and MySpace etc). Easy Submission ensures that you get maximum attention on social media and business networking websites.

Get ready to achieve new avenues of success with well designed mass media optimization and social business networking services offered by Easy Submission.

Author Info – Easy Submission is a one stop solution for all Internet Marketing and advertising needs. With specialization in website promotion through white hat SEO techniques, Easy Submission is able to push you up in Search Engine Rankings.

Contact Info –

Mr. Alex Smith,
992 S. 4th Street, 100-258,
Brighton, CO-80601
Phone – +1-303-719-5604
Website: http://www.easysubmission.net
Email – contact.us@easymedianetwork.com

Or, as this post would seem to imply, is it just an artificial ecosystem made up of the vain, the docile, the needy, the under-resourced and those who’ve take bad advice?

Comments on the back of a tenner to the usual address.

Came across this, which is a look at the American political Twittersphere – I know, I know, sounds horribly complicated and not a little worthy (and it is) – but actually worth a quick look – if only to see who’s using it. Anyway, it’s not the point of this post, so don’t waste too much time.

While I was looking at it, I was drawn to @schwarzenegger (like a moth to a flame, or a fly to dog poo, or a small child to an unprotected electrical socket) and my morbid fascination, dear blog snorkellers, was amply rewarded. Do, please, have a quick look.

Quite clearly, The Governator is not going to tweet himself. No, he has a team of tweeters – and judging by their performance over the last few days, they have fallen foul of ‘Call Me Dave’s ‘too many tweets makes a twat’. I’m sorry – I don’t know Mr Schwarzenegger (although I am a great fan of his oeuvre) (serious) but there is no way on God’s green earth that he is going to post “in case you missed it, here is a clip from our water press conf. That’s what I call bipartisan.” He’s just not. Sorry.

So, I may have missed the point. 1) Maybe it is him, and I’ve been suckered by his monosyllabic silver screen routine. 2) Maybe he dictates it. 3) Maybe no-one cares what the words actually are – it’s the message that counts.

Actually, none of this. What we have here is failure to communicate. Governor Schwarzenegger, publicity-hungry, comms-oriented soul that he is (and I believe he is, and for most of the right reasons) has been advised to ‘do Twitter’. So he’s said yes. And he clearly can’t do it himself, so he’s got someone to do it for him.

Nothing wrong with that – I think most people would expect it – but it throws up a fundamental rule of corporate communications which perhaps the social media strategists have yet to learn. It’s a simple one. Ready?

If, in your communications, you take on the voice of someone else – the CEO, or the Governator – make sure that you approximate their usual delivery (either spoken or written).  Most people understand that this stuff is written by a ghost writer, but no-one wants their face rubbed in it.

Anyway, based on the Governator’s twitter feed – I could do better than that.

Dear Mr Schwarzenegger, can I be your twat?

Reputation Management   Reputation management is the process of controlling, managing, and tracking an entity’s online reputation for its brand name, or for an individual name, or keyword.