In this post, Haque discusses the relationships that are created through all of these social mediums, medias, platforms, networks, and spheres. Are they all super-thin and riddled with layers of doubt? Are they sustainable as long term connections?

His hypothesis:

I'd like to advance a hypothesis: Despite all the excitement surrounding social media, the Internet isn't connecting us as much as we think it is. It's largely home to weak, artificial connections, what I call thin relationships.

Interesting.

He continues on through his "thin relationship" rationale (some I agree with, some I don't) and then closes with:

The social isn't about beauty contests and popularity contests. They're a distortion, a caricature of the real thing. It's about trust, connection, and community. That's what there's too little of in today's mediascape, despite all the hoopla surrounding social tools. The promise of the Internet wasn't merely to inflate relationships, without adding depth, resonance, and meaning. It was to fundamentally rewire people, communities, civil society, business, and the state — through thicker, stronger, more meaningful relationships. That's where the future of media lies.

While his argument is seemingly about personal relationships forged in the social sphere and not the relationships between brands and consumers in the social space, I think the same rules of engagement and long term evolutionary objectives could apply. In fact, I believe it applies even MORE SO to brands than to people. To me, people connect online socially for varying reasons. To find other people who like to play soccer. To learn how to properly curl their hair. To find a French tutor via Craigslist. Some of these manifest themselves into deep relationships but most are thin just like they would be in real life. These types of relationships simply have a backbone in a "shared interest" or an immediate "need" which usually is more superficial and immediate than not.

However, by nature brands NEED to retain connections. They need loyalty. They need longevity. They need "thick" relationships. The future of media (and of communication) does lie (in my humble opinion) in "thick, strong, more meaningful" relationships.

They need... well... in three letters? C-R-M.

Rather than offer up any analysis or insight, I'd like to point you to the 213 (at press time) and counting comments on his blog post that I spent a good hour digging through. If you have a moment, take a peek at them. Very interesting, indeed.

[image via Wendy Bailey's blog here.]

When marketers decide to use any marketing channel, they should always ladder back to the brand's objectives. This is hardly a novel concept and is part of any strategic process, such as the famed Forrester POST methodology, that many use to determine a Social Marketing plan of action.

When it comes to Social Marketing specifically, those objectives can often range from increasing brand site engagement and traffic to Public Relations and everything in between. Just like any other channel, it can be used as a funnel for a variety of types of messaging that is targeted at a varying set of objectives.

Enter an interesting little chart (embedded here).

Like many other marketers, I subscribe to Marketing Sherpa's Chart of the Week.  These handy charts often give a snapshot on one element going on in the world of marketing that they've done a broader research initiative surrounding.

I thought this week's was particularly interesting. It measures the objectives, targeted and measured, by marketers within the social sphere. The big "aha" finding in this is that 3/4 of marketers claim that site traffic increase is one of their key objectives for deploying social tactics.

Marketing Sherpa's conclusion is the same one that I would come to - while an increase in time on site, overall site traffic, SEO optimization and other objectives within that zone are great secondary benefits of Social, there is a larger opportunity to leverage social in a scalable way to provide self service tools and information to consumers that can then, in turn, reduce overall brand cost that can be very heavy when dealing with and addressing customer needs.

There are several brands who actively leverage social platforms to reduce these customer support costs including:

• JetBlue and Virgin America - who actively tweet and provide information about flight delays, schedule changes, weather alerts, and responses to specific customer inquiries
• Best Buy's "Twelpforce" - integrated from Twitter all the way to in-store Point-of-Sale (POS), this massive program helps answer customer questions, provide product information, support, etc in a scalable way
• Comcast's service guru Frank Eliason, who has been deemed the "most famous customer service manager in the US" by Brandweek for his work primarily in the social space (major points for early adoption)

Have you seen any other examples of brands leveraging Social Marketing to help create a supportive consumer environment?

OK Go - This Too Shall Pass from OK Go on Vimeo.

I don't claim to have any of the answers to the many major issues that are currently plaguing the music industry. If I did, I wouldn't be sitting at this desk. I'd be in world domination mode somewhere up on Broadway where Bad Boy holds court convincing Diddy to let me revolutionize his label.

However, I can tell you that there isn't a week that goes by when as a music lover and marketer I don't get extremely frustrated by the current state of affairs. As a marketer, I can understand that there are multiple clients if you are sitting at the top of a music hierarchy - the musicians, the music lovers, and the shareholders, who keep you in your throne. The latter in that list want restrictions - they want content to be controlled by the label - they don't want fan videos or content sharing - they aren't convinced in the power of WOM, because as we all know the ROI is not always so black and white. They want every view or play to count for at least one red cent.

As a music lover and a blogger, I just want to be able to share music I love. Whether it is posting an MP3 of my favorite new Buble song or embedding a video from one of my favorite bands to run to - Ok Go. I still believe in my heart that if you love the music, you'll pay for it, even if you can find it on a million torrent sites for free. Naive? Perhaps.  But I also believe that if someone wants to steal music - they can find it, no matter how many hurdles and hoola-hoops the labels throw their way. And it doesn't take a PhD in hacking to figure it out.

I find it hard to make an argument that allowing a video to be embeddable really hurts the bottom line. Sure, YouTube (in an attempt to pacify the label gods and stop the endless stream of infringement suits)  pays labels for video views - as long as they are within network - embeds don't count for obvious, scalable reasons. But, doesn't the ROI of a new potential consumer discovering the video on their favorite music blog and then buying the song because of that outweigh any penny per view? Or is the ambiguity and hypothetical nature of this ROI deduction make things like embeds the new martyr of the industry?

Perhaps it is a small victory that now, on some label controlled official YouTube channels - the videos can exist. As a fan, I can now at least see the video - most of the time, which is  quite a feat in a world where MTV is filled with Jersey Shore reruns and no real music at all. However, as a marketer who specializes in Social Marketing & WOM - this is infuriating. Cutting out the ability to share via embed is hurtful - to PR, to the artist, to the virality of the content that is created. It's cutting off the legs of something that could be easily buzzworthy via the social actions of share/rate/review that foster a bevy of C to C interaction.

Quite simply - Socializing content is a proven tactic to generate awareness leading to consumer loyalty and retention. This is a fact.

In a land where many musicians become famous (and get record deals) through social media platforms (Colbie Caillat + MySpace = one example) it truly comes full circle when on their new big prestigious label - they are no longer allowed to share their creations on the platform that the label discovered them through - primarily through content embeds which generate a bulk of the views, which increase awareness / buzz, etc.  It's almost mind blowing.

One of such examples sprouted up this week with Ok Go, whose member Damian posted on their forum a message about how their label is insisting on prohibiting embedded playback of their new video. [Full disclosure, way back in the day, we created their fan community for the label]:

"Four years after we posted our first homemade videos to YouTube and they spread across the globe faster than swine flu, making our bassist’s glasses recognizable to 70-year-olds in Wichita and 5-year-olds in Seoul and eventually turning a tidy little profit for EMI, we’re – unbelievably – stuck in the position of arguing with our own label about the merits of having our videos be easily shared."

It is hard to ignore the irony that this all seems to bleed. What is OK Go's solution to this situation? Syndicate the video on sites like Vimeo where labels like EMI can't stop them from sharing it. The irony layered upon the irony is that if the label had any digital strategy whatsoever - the video syndicate would be part of the launch of any new artist material already.

As the new year hits full swing, we're all in search of our list of hopeful (and overly ambitious?) resolutions for what the new year will bring. Eat healthier. Exercise more. Work hard. Play harder. My list seems to contain some variation of this every year.  So what will the new year bring to Social Marketing?

Many people believe this is going to be the "Year of Social Marketing" - a build upon 2009, which seemed to be the year of the Tweet, that catapulted everyone from @Oprah to your favorite brand (well, that's one of mine) into the conversational micro-blogging social sphere.

Kicking down the new year's door into the "year of Social Marketing" is a likely (and savvy) player, Pepsi, who has announced (to little surprise those familiar with their great marketing team) that they are going to forgo Super Bowl ads and instead utilize funds within the social space with their cause-oriented "Refresh" initiative. They know what we here at Affinitive believe - developing relationships with your consumers, your real consumers,  while providing them with a unique consumer value is what the landscape is dictating to be the strategy that is resonating.

We're a fickle bunch of consumers. We want the best deal.  We want our voices to be heard. We want answers to our questions shortly after asking them. We expect to be engaged. The rules of acquiring our attention (and business) have quite simply, changed. We aren't wowed by a Pepsi commercial starring Britney Spears, we're wowed by a tweeting Britney Spears, sharing her behind the scenes tour photos with us directly (well, maybe it's actually her, some of the time?) We want the information, straight from the source, we want to be on the inside.

While many have a hard time quite classifying exactly where social marketing starts and stops both from an execution stand point (who does what internally? is it PR? is it digital?) and from a platform perspective (no, Social Marketing isn't just Facebook and Twitter) - it is hard to argue that it is truly a marketing REVOLUTION. The biggest strategic and tactical trend to emerge in quite some time.

So what does all this mean? This means that in 2010 -Social Marketing will continue to grow, and take a new shape - The REVOLUTION will be Socialized. Cheesy? Yes. But true nonetheless.

Social Marketing will stop being limited by many brands' fear of execution or by traditional boundaries -  it will evolve beyond its current bucketed limitation (i.e., all videos should be on YouTube, you develop your own branded community under a navigational tab that says  "community"). It will head more mobile, the ever present question of ROI will begin to be answered and standards will be set, unethical players will be eliminated, and CRM will take center stage. This amongst many other things.

Ravit Lichtenberg from UStrategy.com over at Read Write Web already articulated all of this in his blog post "10 Ways Social Media Will Change in 2010" far better than I ever could.

I suggest anyone looking to get a grasp of where "Social Media" could head in 2010 - head that way. Although I'm of the camp that believes it's Social Marketing not Social Media, Social is the operative word and essentially it's the same meat & potatoes.

Key takeaways from his post that I believe will ring true in Twenty-Ten:

• Mobile Mobile Mobile MOBILE (and not those pesky SMS to win campaigns...)
• Brands will establish a social marketing footprint (cohesive = key)
• It's all about the ladies  (my mom has a lot of time on her hands, does yours?)
• Offline and online will continue to be integrated (and Ravit thinks in some bizarre ways, I'm not totally sold on that)
• Social Marketing will no longer be constricted by existing platforms & technology (think hybrids, emerging mediums/tools, augmented reality, anyone?)
• ROI ROI ROI ( the first question any marketer gets asked always ladders back to this. While I'm unsure a universal metric will magically emerge, I think key WAYS to measure some of them will)
• Your brand can't afford NOT to join the Social Revolution (everyone else is already a few steps ahead of you, if you haven't)

So there you had it. Bravo, Ravit. A fantastic read.

Social Marketing - although still two very buzzworthy words - is a true marketing revolution.  It is changing the way consumers discover new brands, learn impactful information about brands, and ultimately, how they determine which brand to purchase.

The best way to develop true relationships with your consumers that will foster loyalty and retention is to Socialize.

That means that of the retailers surveyed in a survey by the e-tailing Group and PowerReviews in August and September of this year, Facebook will have almost 100% brand penetration, as reported by eMarketer.

Other interesting insights  from the survey:

• More than 1/2 of retailers surveyed use 5 of 10 of the Social Marketing tools they included in the survey
• Top tools used by retailers includes: Facebook, Twitter, Reviews, Blogs & Viral Videos - all of which are over 50% usage amongst those surveyed

The sentiment measured in the survey indicated what we encounter almost weekly with potential clients - marketers are still scared of Social Media. Scared to give up control of their brand, scared about how the conversations can take a mind or path of their own, and worried that they lack the skills internally to fully understand how Social Media best works within their brand framework.

Pushing those fears aside, the resounding sentiment that they note rings true: Using social media might be scary, but avoiding it is becoming less (and less and less and less) of an option.

Ways to move beyond those fears?

• Conduct a Social Media "Audit" - hire an agency like Affinitive (naturally!) who specializes in the space to look at who/what/where is currently talking about your brand - listening and identifying where to enter the conversation is the first step
• Step away from your interns - Managing a Facebook page is no longer the work of an intern (if it ever was, gasp!), time to put some real strategy behind it
• They're gonna talk no matter what - remember that just like the gossiping girls in your high school, no matter what you do, people are going to talk about you. Best to be there to join the conversation, curb any inaccuracies, and develop a relationship with them that is full of trust, transparency, and ultimately - value
• If the platform fails, so what? - There's a possibility Twitter, Facebook & YouTube could be obsolete in a couple of years. Not looking likely, but always possible (Friendster, what?) but so what... if your presence in that platform becomes no longer necessary, the same applies to everyone else. Crafting an exit strategy is easy. Better to exit when it's time to than to sit on the sidelines and watch your competitors take home a pile of innovation awards and the loyalty of your target audience.

As we've mentioned, it's a land grab. The time to act is now.

At least that's the question that keeps coming up in conversations with my current / future / probable clients as we look at how to integrate Social Media Marketing into their strategy for 2010. As I've mentioned in earlier posts, it's no longer an uphill convincing battle of us trying to say to clients YES YOU ABSOLUTELY MUST DO SOCIAL MEDIA AND HERE ARE 1,052 REASONS WHY... now the conversation is more WE KNOW WE NEED TO DO IT SO HELP US FIGURE OUT WHAT WE SHOULD DO?

Lately most of those conversations can't seem to exist without the mention of the one, the only TWITTER.

The Social Media Marketing landscape is a lot like the world of sports. It has some mainstay platforms (like franchise teams -  the Dallas Cowboys, New York Yankees, Atlanta Braves = Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, Flickr) and then it has it's emerging greats - powerful players who people believe could become a franchise all on their own (like Jordan + Chicago, LeBron + Cleveland, Bonds + San Fran,... well you get the idea). The emerging greats - like players - can come onto the scene from nowhere and stick around.

Sticking around is what separates them from the majorly buzzed about but often prematurely hyped players - who come into the game and can leave it just as quickly - whether they leave it injured due to technology issues, an acquisition, a lack of providing that niche/unique experience that keeps them around or they simply get beat by a better competitor and bow out.

2009 is Twitter's year. In 2008 many tech pundits questioned whether Twitter would stick. The most common statement about Twitter seemed to be "I just don't get it."

But this is a new year. It's like Twitter has been drafted out of high school straight into the pros.

Entering into the Twitter game isn't, however, a right of passage, as some might leave you to believe. Although Twitter is becoming as common a search tool as Yahoo, it still doesn't necessarily mean that your brand HAS to have an account on Twitter. It's a platform just like any other - and decision to engage has to be strategic and tie to your business objectives. Just like a team wouldn't draft a really great point guard if they really are in desperate need of a center forward, Twitter might not be an absolute for your brand.

Without further ado (har har, I couldn't resist! I'm cheesy!) a few things to consider when trying to answer the epic question "To tweet or not to tweet?" (if you're asking it as a brand, not as a person...unless your person is your brand, of course...)

As a brand there are a variety of ways you can interact with your existing and potential consumers, or your target or aspirational audiences (or all of the above). It isn't as simple as a micro statement. Like anything else - the tone, the audience, and the approach can vary based on how the deployment of Twitter would impact your business objectives.

A few common ways brands use Twitter (effectively) are as follows:

• To engage in conversation. At it's core Twitter allows you to develop, facilitate and engage in B to C and C to B and three way conversations - with those who are talking about you, to you or about /within a marketplace segment you'd like to dominate (or you do dominate).
• To answer customer service questions. Are you in an industry plagued with power outages? Are you like Sprint PCS with your customer dissatisfaction chronicled across the web? Twitter is a great place to begin to answer or facilitate the answering of key consumer questions.
• To provide crisis communication and curb rumors. Celebs are doing the best job of this currently - but brands can as well! Don't let the blogosphere or some stodgy press release that goes out to the AP tell your story.  Talk to your friends, tell them the truth in a simple, short statement that links to further details. They'll spread it for you quickly, guaranteed.
• To share new product information and get feedback. Add a new item to your menu? Ask people to check it out and share their micro reviews.  Have something you want to seed? Give it away to some influential tweeters. Don't let joe schmo rogue blogger from Detroit show the first images of your new concept car, break them on Twitter yourself in an ownable way. Give your consumers a backstage pass to the shaping and molding of your brand.
• To drive traffic to another online destination. Check the web analytics of any brand site who deploys social media marketing. I guarantee Twitter and Facebook rank in the top 5 traffic drivers if they are deploying good strategy within either.
• To host giveaways and other consumer promotions. Invite Tweeters to come to a live tasting of your product. Do a giveaway to your followers. Ask people to retweet a statement in order to win XYZ. Note: there is a fine line in executing this well and with good intention/strategy. I'd suggest not deploying this unless you are sure you're doing it in a genuine way.
• To tell a story about a brand, experience or persona. This is really the reason to being. What/who/how/why is the voice of your brand? This is the essence of who you are. It blows my mind when people leave this voice to interns. This is your story on the front lines...directly playing with the key players who will BUY your product, make sure you are 100% confident in the storyteller.
• To develop your brand identity. See bullet above.
• To establish relationships by facilitating simple brand interactions. This probably should have been at the top of the list. 9 times out of 10, Twitter makes the most sense when brands really can benefit from relationship marketing with the right audience.  Before brands used to have to go through a third party to make that happen. Those days are gone resulting in an exciting (and often scary for the old school set) new set of opportunities.

The scope and possibility here is way too expansive to be encompassed in this single post.

The point is that although in most cases we would likely determine that drafting Twitter as a new member of your marketing team mix is the right thing to do - it isn't as simple as signing up for the account, slapping on a background image and tweeting.

There are lots of other players on the field, so if you want to really play, you better step onto it with your A game.

Note on image: The top tweet is one of my favorites, from the man... Mr. A-Z himself twittering about his experience with Surfrider Foundation at a Barefoot Wine sponsored event. Barefoot is one of the brands I have the extreme pleasure of working with on Social Media Marketing.

Less than 10 months ago, I remember creating massive PowerPoint presentations explaining exactly who, what, and WHY platforms like Twitter were going to become key social platforms for brands to engage with consumers - especially when loyalty and retention are part of the brand's goals and objectives. Now we are getting requests for Twitter and Facebook strategic proposals on a daily basis. The tide has definitely turned.

According to a recent study by Burson-Marsteller, Twitter is the top Social Media platform for Fortune 100 companies. Not a huge shocker if you work (live! breathe! all of the above!) the space, but nice to hear tools that you believe, as a marketer, to be viable if properly adopted to begin to emerge as frequent parts of  brands' strategies.

What is even more interesting is when you drill the reported Fortune 100 numbers down:

• 54 percent of the Fortune 100 have a Twitter presence (Anyone have that list? Mashable? Couldn't find it on their Mega Lists)
• 32 percent have a blog
• 29 percent have an active Facebook Page.
• only 17 percent use all three (blog, Facebook, Twitter)
• 94% of companies who use Twitter use it for news/announcements, 67% for consumer service and 57 per cent for deals and promotions
• average Twitter account has 5,234 followers,  median is 674 followers.

At companies using only one of these tools, 76 percent of them use Twitter as the tool of choice. Whew. In some ways this makes me want to dance around in circles and sing "I told you so" like a 4th grader...but mostly this just makes me want to work harder to ensure that all of our current, future, past, potential clients step into the space with purpose AND best practices.

As the best practices for the space continue to get defined and redefined by the people who actively engage in them (as users,  brand leaders, marketers...), the ownership over social marketing as a strategy and the social mediums that fall underneath it's umbrella enters into a huge gray area.

As the popularity has ensued, the land grab for control over social marketing has hit full swing.

In what can perhaps best be analogized as a social marketing gold rush,  marketers and agencies across the board are racing to own that space within their existing (and future) brand relationships. Simultaneously brands are racing to get started in social marketing (for the most part) and aren't sure which direction to go.

Who best owns Social Marketing? PR? Digital? A boutique agency? Internal brand managers and team members?

While there is clearly no universal answer - despite what we'd all love to think - there are a few key items on the list that seem to be basic rules of thumb that most brands simply can't ignore.

So without further ado, let me present my list of Social Marketing tidbits for thought, the growing/morphing changing stream of practices, ideas, and 411s that go into most of my brainstorms:

1. People are talking about you on Twitter... and likely on Facebook, and definitely out there in the big, bad blogosphere. And will talk about you. They are asking for you to join the conversation.
2. The person (or persons) communicating on behalf of your brand have to really know your brand.
3. But they also have to really know the medium...and the medium's user base.
4. There are rules to engagement in all platforms - you cannot go into this blindly as a brand. You have a lot more at stake than Joe Schmo's anonymous testing of the waters.
5. There is a true strategy to using social mediums properly. Frequency of content, types of content, ways to advertise (if you should advertise?), metrics and measurements for success, best type of communication, even the lingo is often strategic.
6. The worst thing you can do is feed all your blog posts into your Twitter, all your Twitter posts into your Facebook, and all your Facebook status updates back into your Twitter.  Sure you want to cross-link and have an integrated strategy, but each audience deserves to be communicated with directly.
7. Transparency. (Always, always, always).
8. There is a major debate with regards to the ethics of paying bloggers, tweeters, etc. Be sure to know where/how your social marketing team approaches this (and know the backstory).
9. Just because [insert cool brand name here] and Oprah are on Twitter doesn't necessarily mean that you should be. Enter all mediums with a plan and with purpose.
10. Chances are your legal department is going to need a full-fledged tutorial on whichever platforms you choose.
11. Don't give up if you're facing some legal challenges. You can work through them. We have navigated through (and prevailed!)  highly regulated industries and it is worth it.
12. The number of "fans" and "followers" and "friends" your brand has only matters if you are actively engaging them with content that makes sense, that they want to consume, in ways that they want to consume it, and in ways it best fits in with your overall marketing mix.
13. Debating social strategy internally? Starting with Forrester's P.O.S.T. analysis really is a good way to get the ball rolling.
14. The blessing (and curse!) of online is how fluid and flexible it is. Make sure you are, too.
15. If the people doing your strategy aren't active personal users of the platforms - mega red flag. Find their accounts, verify they actually are practicing the buzz worthy mantra they are preaching.

I'm sure I'm missing many on the list. So, marketers, tweeters, bloggers, strategists, tumblrers, Facebookers, social media enthusiasts, what do YOU think?

Last week you learned a valuable lesson (no, not that Oprah is queen - we already knew that). You learned, hopefully, not to underestimate the power of Word of Mouth.

To recap, for those who haven't been stampeded in one of your locations within the past week...

You as a brand, interested in dipping you toes into the healthier side and challenging the "F" that is the center of your acronym (you are brave!), decided to launch an online coupon for your new "Kentucky Grilled Chicken" line and seed it with the ever so subtle and non-influential (ha!) @Oprah.

The coupon was for two free pieces of grilled chicken, two sides and a biscuit to anyone who downloaded and printed it within a two-day period.  By your brand's own analysis and admission, according to your spokesperson and Ad Age however, it wasn't the Big O who caused the premature canceling of the promotion and in-store riots, it was the WOM-driven sharing of the promotion.

According to this very informative review of Chicken-Gate in Ad Age, KFC/KGC banked on big Oprah numbers. You took O's projections for number of coupons based on other offers from her show and then subsequently doubled them.  You estimated about 10.5 million coupons were downloaded, which you could have handled. But then, the kicker comes in - in what I can only believe to be an obvious twist of fate without unique codes and a system that can detect them, the coupons were photocopied and shared from friend to fast food loving friend.

Adding mega fuel to the grill, you apparently didn't properly brief all your chicken purveyors.  You see, my non-Yum Brand enthusiasts, KFC is not only company-owned - there are franchisees across the country (and it is a recession). And they aren't giving you their chicken without Colonel Sanders reimbursing them. So they do what all people trying to curb costs in a harsh economic climate would do - act completely unaware and utterly unwilling to accept the coupons. At least that is what has allegedly happened several reported scenarios that we have learned about thanks to our friends at Consumerist who are always clucking around the latest promotional scandal.

All of this adds up to a public relations disaster with consumers now pacified with a free Pepsi (really KFC, not even a drumstick or two? or better yet how about a Dr. Pepper?) left angry and annoyed.

Believing that you  hadn't learned the Starbucks lesson in the inevitable WOM of coupons seems unrealistic. I can't help but believe that you WANTED this mega success turned disaster of too much consumer interest to happen. The amount of precedence (see below) makes your unawareness just not seem likely.

And this could have been deemed a total and utter success, if you just would have set better rules of engagement.

Oh, KFC... If only you had handled it better - with unique trackable codes or printing system, some type of CRM integration (which would have given you more measurable results and consumer qualification for a deeper relationship marketing after the fact - building loyalty with your new grilled friends) or when the chicken hit the fan, with a better crisis plan in place.

As I am convinced you know, with downloadable coupons, the ability for it to spiral, especially in a recession and for a FULL MEAL is inevitable. Consumers live and breathe a brand throwing them a free buck.

But have no fear, KFC, a few of your friends have made just as big of a mess of things as you have. If only you had heeded their example.

DR PEPPER

Dr Pepper said it would give everyone in the country a free soda if Guns N' Roses released its much anticipated album "Chinese Democracy" before the end of the year.  This promotion culminated in the band's lawyers getting nasty with the brand stating that G 'n R are "outraged at the treatment of their fans and the American public in general" after Dr. Pepper's site couldn't handle the traffic and repeatedly crashed when they attempted to honor their promise.

After mega backlash in the blogosphere for seeming to be unprepared for the consumer response, Dr Pepper extended the offer for a few more days, but continued to receive tons of criticism as a result of the incident. Note to Dr. Pepper: if you would have offered us all a partial refund for the album (what a let down it was) all would have been forgiven

SUBWAY

Your footlong friends Subway did away with their iconic and beloved (by sub fans, not by me) stamp loyalty program that was born way back in the 1980s after (duh) realizing that there might be some fraud going on both with consumers and internally with their franchisees with counterfit stamps and cards.

The breaking point? A roll of the stamps being sold on eBay.

I think they're redeeming themselves with the big Chuck promotion, though. I'm all about the Save Chuck bandwagon. Maybe you could spin yours into saving Lipstick Jungle? Or Kings? I love both of those programs. I'd be happy to help. I bet Brooke Shields and Ian McShane could get behind some grilled chicken.

QUIZNO's

In other sub disasters, earlier this year, your grilled sub friends, Quizno's ran into some trouble when they announced their million sub giveaway (aka free sandwich) (see a pattern here?)  The problem, which seems like it might be a bit of yours also, was many of the company's franchises didn't participate in the "million sub giveaway" leading to mega consumer backlash.

It is unclear if they ever truly hit that magic million number.

And, the ultimate king of coupon PR disaster is of course, your friends from the land of eternal rain, Starbucks.

STARBUCKS

Trumping all of the above, your Seattle friends ran into a class-action suit after they tried a free coffee promotion way back in 2006. Starbucks emailed printable coupons for free iced coffee drinks to employees urging them to pass the coupons on to friends and family. Obviously, their friends & family hit the fabulous "FORWARD" button and the promotion got a bit out of hand.

After 38-days Starbucks announced that they would no longer honor the coupons.

So, in summary, my friends in mashed potatoes & chicken, I am suggesting that you curb this crisis with some innovation. Do a promotion that honors and activates your influencers.  Use them as the spark that fires up the grilled fire, in a positive, trackable, and controlled manner.  Rally around them to introduce your new health-conscious option.

You will spark word of mouth and have a demonstrated ROI that makes your loyalists, your new friends in all things grilled, the blogosphere, AND your franchisees happy and full.

Need an agency to help you out? This is right up our alley. Drop me a line.

Your friend in all things grilled, mashed & gravy covered,

Sarah

These Vintage Prints feature iconic, greater outdoors inspired scenes and are available to consumers at no cost via their community site Blaze the Trail.

Recently, one of these posters found a new, large home on the Beverly Boulevard between Gardner and North Vista Streets in Los Angeles. The Moose, the first ever Consumers Choice Vintage Print (conceptualized by and voted to victory by consumers), will be hanging out proudly there apologizing to LA'ers for the horrible delays in traffic through the week of May 4th.

While we are happy to see this awesome artwork displayed anywhere loud and proud, the fact the Moose was the consumer-selected winner of a consumer-generated content contest is near and dear to our marketing hearts.  Consumers are open to always submit their creative visions for the next Redwood Creek Vintage Print, and we are always sifting through the ideas narrowing down finalists for the next time that we will nominate a few to face off, with the winner getting printed and distributed to consumers, for free.

Note: The Moose won't be available online to grab for your wall  until the end of May. But we do hope you'll pick one up then.

Quite an interesting question indeed. With Social Media being a super hyped little pair of buzz words, every agency, self-promoting fameball, or major brand who follows trendy little buzz words has jumped on the tweeting, wall-posting, super-poking bandwagon.

While they are most definitely right to be on the wagon, the deployment of a Social Media initiative is not something one embarks upon without any planning or experience. It is one thing to be a celebrity building your own online brand, but even then you have to be wary. The room for interpretation on the context of your tweets, blog posts, or status updates is a pretty big room and the elephant in it is that whether you are a brand or Demi Moore, the online world of snark just wants to see you stumble.  Just like that photograph of you on Page Six in your unflattering sweats or that consumer complaint about an experience with your brand or one of your employees that now has 50,000 views on Consumerist, dipping your toes into Social Media has to be done clearly and with purpose.

Even without the fear or risk of negative backlash, in order to make a lasting impression that positively supports your brand and that has a trajectory for growth and "viral" legs, one must have a firm foundation based on knowledge and experience, on what works and what doesn't.

Which is why, as with every other marketing tactic or medium, having a strategy is important.  Your Social Media initiatives should be integrated with your overall brand strategy, whether you are trying to peddle a product, fameball, celebrity, or brand.  There should be goals, objectives, benchmarks, and a thought out approach that makes sense for what it is that you want to communicate and how you wish to communicate it.

In this Marketing Sherpa study, they concluded that " Two-thirds of marketers who work for organizations that have not used any form of social media marketing or PR consider themselves “very knowledgeable” or “somewhat knowledgeable” about this emerging strategy. Their overconfidence in unproven ability can doom social media initiatives to failure."

It is a mistake to believe that if you build it, they will come.

To believe that you can set up a YouTube channel, upload a few videos, and boom, there you have viral video is about as logical as believing that people with a video camera can create a Super Bowl commercial. Although in some cases, the former does happen, more often than not  it doesn't and won't.

In the same manner, it is foolish to believe that just because you create a Facebook or iPhone application and put it out in the universe, people will use it. The application directory on Facebook is flooded with applications, most of which (the most recent stat I heard was 99%) are basically inactive. Even the top Facebook applications that were previously deemed "successful" have seen a decrease in usage that averages between 15-24% with the new Facebook redesign.

While I do believe that it is possible for some brands to embark upon a Social Media plan "in house", it is increasingly important to do so with someone taking the reigns who has Social Media experience and expertise. If you want to cut through the clutter, ward off any potential viral embarrassment, and most importantly, have a successful initiative having someone on board who knows the space - not as a user, but as a marketer, is key.

As an employee of an agency that dipped its own toes into Social Media before it was so totally trendy and part of a majority of Fortune 1000 marketing budgets, I can say that the overzealous nature of marketers to believe they fully understand Social Media is partially exciting. It is nice to have these mediums & tactics that we believe (and have for quite some time) to be viable be recognized and appreciated by the more traditional marketers.

I just urge you to remember that just like other traditional and existing non-traditional tactics, strategy is key. While a rogue effort by someone with no experience could prove to be successful, lightning rarely strikes in the same place twice.

It is best to consult with, hire, or bring to the team, someone(s) with a true passion for and expertise and experience in Social Media.

These two buzz words are best buzzed about by someone who knows how to properly buzz them.