Alliance Blog Reviews

As marketing professionals, we usually have to justify ourselves to our bosses, our clients and everyone in between—especially in the less-tested, sometimes-hit-or-miss arena of social media. But now Ad Age wants accountability, too, as they ask “if you’re getting enough out of all the volunteer work you do for Biz & Ev and Mark,” or, more specifically, “Are we all just toiling mightily to make a bunch of rich nerds (Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and his employees and investors, Twitter’s Biz Stone and Evan Williams and their employees and investors) richer, while we impoverish ourselves?” That’s both a literal and a figurative question, since using those social networks is exactly what makes their founders and investors money (well, sort of), and, as the argument goes, we’re essentially a volunteer labor force creating content for these sites—an interesting point. Meanwhile, using social networks (at all, as the argument here seems to go) means sacrificing time (true), actual interactions (possibly true but not always)—and our very souls and identities. They mean this to be a discussion on a personal level, since a central thrust of the argument is that these social networks have sacrificed so much of our privacy that we’re allowing them to steal (don’t we call that “giving” in English?) “the sole ownership of our own thoughts, emotions, personal expressions, etc.” from us (yes, if I post “I’m sad” on a social network, that means that they also own my emotion…. right….). Of course, if you’re using Twitter and Facebook as a marketer, you’re there looking for business ROI from publicity—being public. Ad Age (you know, “Advertising” Age? About . . . could it be . . . advertising ?) does acknowledge that social networks might work for these purposes, if they’re worth the sacrifice: If you’re a brand marketer, chances are good that you’re extracting real value from investing time and energy in social media (and you’re happy to have consumers volunteering their time to be your “brand ambassadors” or whatever you want to call them); good for you. (And if you’re a consumer who gets off on connecting with big brands — or just wants to interface with customer service in a forum, like Twitter, where certain marketers seem to be hyper-responsive — well, good for you too.) In general, if you’re soft-selling something — like content or an idea — that can benefit from free publicity, Facebook and Twitter are your friends. Even if, well, they’re the two-faced sort who think nothing of riffling through your handbag or backpack when you get up to go the bathroom — you know, glad-handing “friends” (those are air quotes) who are obviously using you for something, only it’s not always entirely clear what. Um . . . I hate to bring this up, but aren’t we as marketers just using our social networks as those same kind of “friends” (and possibly even the friends and fans we acquire on those social networks)—we’re just using them as the means to an end? I do agree, of course, that on a personal level, excessive use of social media can rob us of time and valuable interaction with the people we care about most. It’s good to examine our relationship with the Internet and social media on a personal level and decide whether it’s really worth the time and effort we put into it, or if we might put that time to better use. While that’s the brief summary of the argument at the conclusion of the article, the main thrust is that using social networks is such a great sacrifice of ourselves (even without a time investment) that it’s not worth it. What do you think? Do you demand ROI from personal social network use? Or are you glad that most people don’t ?

See more here:
Are You Getting Enough out of Twitter & Facebook?

For many in the online space these days the words “Facebook privacy” would be called an oxymoron. Then of course there would be the usual calling others at Facebook morons and then it would get worse from there but I digress. Michael Arrington recently interviewed the poster child for the “Privacy? What privacy?” movement, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. Mashable’s Pete Cashmore tells us : Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg claims that if Facebook was starting out now, sharing with everybody would be the starting point, rather than with a small group of friends. Is this more about reflecting social norms or changing them to help Facebook compete with Twitter? The statement, made during a livestream of the Crunchies awards , hits on a hot button issue for Facebook: it recently notified users of privacy changes via a pop-up notification. While the message claimed that Facebook was displaying the message to give users more privacy controls, blindly clicking “next” was a way to make much of your data public. And in fact, some data like the Friends List has become more public without any settings changes by users. I honestly don’t know where I stand on all of this. I think my only real concern is just how little attention most people pay to these major shifts in social norms especially when they are moved along at rocket speed by something as pervasive and powerful as Facebook. I know that even with the new “everyone needs to see everyone else’s stuff” privacy policy at Facebook, I can go in and lock down my public profile to whatever degree I want. How many of the 350 million supposed users of the service actually know that or even care? I don’t know. I suspect not as many as should. An interesting article appeared in the Wall Street Journal today from Jaron Lanier , which is an excerpt from his new book. He is a pioneer in virtual reality technology and has some very real concerns about this new move to the “social collective” and I don’t disagree with him on much of it. Here’s a sample: Here’s one problem with digital collectivism: We shouldn’t want the whole world to take on the quality of having been designed by a committee. When you have everyone collaborate on everything, you generate a dull, average outcome in all things. You don’t get innovation. There’s a dominant dogma in the online culture of the moment that collectives make the best stuff, but it hasn’t proven to be true. The most sophisticated, influential and lucrative examples of computer code—like the page-rank algorithms in the top search engines or Adobe’s Flash— always turn out to be the results of proprietary development. Indeed, the adored iPhone came out of what many regard as the most closed, tyrannically managed software-development shop on Earth. I realize that I am mixing and matching the personal web and the business of the web. They are, however, intricately intertwined especially as we move into the future. When the generation of “open information and free stuff etc, etc” are in the business world (and a lot are already) this new “social norm” that Zuckerberg talks about so casually could very well mean the end to true innovation unless signed off by the collective. As a result that means watered down ideas in most cases. As if it’s not bad enough, the US government is showing socialist tendencies. What if the business world became that way too? Geesh, time to buy some land, make my own clothes and grow my own food. We will all be brought to the middle and the world could be very average. Of course these are just my own opinions on this but I am really no that interested in having to depend on everyone “signing off” on one my ideas before it can move forward. I am not thrilled about the idea of things like “search neutrality” that reared its ridiculous head in the recent weeks. I like privacy. I like some semblance of control. Maybe it is time to consider that plot of land and a tractor. That is of course, if it’s OK with everyone.

More:
Zuckerberg Sparks More Privacy Discussion

We in the online world take every opportunity to turn our nose up at traditional media like newspapers because they are so 1900’s. Just take a look over the past year of posts that I have done and I at times can lead that charge. For the record, I do not relish in the fact that newspapers are going by the way side in many ways. I see that they are and it’s hard not to notice. It’s not the idea of newspapers in general that is the trouble, it’s their slow adoption of the online space and the price they are paying that is most difficult to watch. Put simply I would hate to see newspapers “go away”. It’s not likely that there will be no newspapers someday but it is likely that the consolidation and attrition in the industry will continue. Many in the online space so “So what?! Goodbye and good riddance!” I don’t. The reason I don’t has nothing to do with the nostalgia of newspapers. If I never got ink on my hands again from flipping the pages I would survive. What does scare me, however, is just how the news is actually uncovered and then reported if there was not the front line of the traditional media. A recent study in the Baltimore metro area showed that while there is significantly fewer traditional media outlets in the area the remaining ones are still responsible for the reporting of 95% of the “first run” news. The New York Times reports : Looking at six major story lines that developed over one week last July, 83 percent of the reports in local news media “were essentially repetitive, conveying no new information,” said the study, by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, an arm of the Pew Research Center. Despite diminished resources of established news organizations, “of the stories that did contain new information, nearly all, 95 percent, came from old media — most of them newspapers,” it said. “These stories then tended to set the narrative agenda for most other media outlets.” 95%? That’s a little scary if you are trumpeting the end of the newspaper medium. From an advertisers perspective it’s easy to pick on the industry but from a news uncovering and development perspective we need to be careful to not cut our online noses off to spite our face. So is Baltimore indicative of the rest of the country? Maybe, maybe not. What is of interest though is that people crave information. They crave details on events. Let’s forget about the mindless blather of the celebrity world. If you want something that superficial and fluffy then anyone can produce it. It doesn’t matter. If a mistake is made in reporting about Oprah Winfrey’s weight we’ll all survive. In things that truly impact lives it is still the job of “journalists” to report and to hopefully give the information without bias (I know, I know that doesn’t happen but one can dream….). It’s at that point that bloggers and the like can comment and help shape the news. Where are you on this one? Would it really be a good thing if newspapers and their reporting dried up and went away? Are there enough credible and scalable online news agencies to cover the amount of “stuff” that is generated and deemed important in each new 24-hour period? I don’t think so. As a result, I am a little concerned about what might actually happen if the online world got its wish and made the newspaper industry disappear. Your thoughts?

Here is the original post:
Newspapers and Traditional Media Still Produce Most News

It’s true to state that different businesses take different approaches to using social media, whether that is blogging, tweeting, creating facebook groups and fan pages or utilising LinkedIn . Small businesses have gained online advantage with their small size flexibility giving them the confidence to stand out for their brand and engage with their audience. It’s key to online success for all business sizes that the “social” element of social media and twitter is really appreciated. Both the smaller, and large businesses which do well in social media are those who embrace with open arms the opportunities it gives. Small businesses are doing well because: - They are taking advantage of their size and “knowing their customer” - They often have just one person tweeting for the firm and no chain of command to define the social media approach. - They socialise and build real business relationships on Twitter and other social media platforms, in the way that traditionally they would offline at places like the Chamber of Commerce. And – it is much cheaper to do so! Larger businesses shouldn’t be afraid to get involved on Twitter and other social platforms. As an organisation you can learn from listening to what is already happening in your area of expertise by using Twitter Search to check out content, tone and discussions, as well as googling to find out if competitors are using social media, and how. Twitter and other socialmedia platforms can work well because business does work on trusted connections, and the online medium of Twitter is just the new extension of that. Businesses will do best when they work within the context of their own environments and answer the unspoken questions (Is it safe for my business, won’t it take too much time, what if it goes wrong, what if an employee talks about us or our work…) honestly and up front before taking action online. At the same time, if you’re not involved you’re missing a great opportunity, and if you don’t test the waters, you’ll never know if it works for your business. When you do dip a toe in the water, you’ve got all those experiences built from networking offline in the “real world” in the corporate environment. Use the right people, who are interested in social media and your subject, and you’re off and running and born to tweet! © 2008 TwiTip Twitter Tips . Big Business: Don’t lose out to small businesses on Twitter

Read more from the original source:
Big Business: Don’t lose out to small businesses on Twitter

So the other day I logged into LinkedIn and went to my Inbox to view some messages. There I saw a connection request that I had obviously rejected back in November. I don’t like accepting request on LinkedIn unless I have met the said person face to face. So it’s not unusual that I would have rejected someone’s request. However, when I actually read this one request something was different. This person apparently met me while in Las Vegas at PubCon. Why did I refuse his request? Well, to be honest, I don’t remember the guy at all. I mean, I met a lot of cool folks at PubCon and apparently I met some non-memorable ones as well. Being non-memorable is a problem, especially for people at networking events. I have to make a confession: I don’t have a trendy smart phone. Now don’t get me wrong I have nothing against them, it’s just that my current phone does everything I need and more. I have been thinking lately about upgrading to a new smart phone, but quite honestly it has been really hard deciding which to pick. One of my old friends from college used to have a BlackBerry and now is using a Motorola Droid. So I called him up to get his opinion. We talked for a long time about all the different options in the smart phone market and I still didn’t feel any closer to picking out a phone that I wanted. Why can’t I decide? What keeps getting in the way with this decision? Honestly none of the phones “jump out” at me. I mean really, when it all boils down to it, they are all the same. Sure some have different features. Some come with different services plans. Some come with different apps and widgets. But seriously they all pretty much do the same thing. Why aren’t any of the smart phone makers creating devices that stand out from the crowd? Why aren’t any of them creating memorable products? Why do they all pretty much look the same? Why can’t I get one shaped like a banana with pink and purple stripes? I want one that can also open a bottle of beer, or something else equally ridiculous . Seth Godin will tell you that your brand has to be remarkable.  However, before your brand can be remarkable it has to be memorable. It has to stand out from the crowd. It has to make me want to know more.

See the article here:
Cup of Joe: Give Me a Smart Phone With Pink & Purple Stripes

The world of business has gone virtual and there are many different marketing trends that are growing quite popular. Blogging or blog marketing can be one of the most useful, yet misunderstood tools that a business has. Blogs can do just about anything that you want them to, whether you have a fun and friendly business or a technical or professional company.

Blog marketing allows more informal language to be used in communication with visitors. There is no rule of how blogs are to be written, other than the fact that they should be personal, informal, and to the point. Blogging gives you so many different opportunities to reach out to people, and it is really an invaluable tool for your website or business.

Blog marketing can be used in many ways. You can use it to give people information, to communicate with your customers on their level, or even to let people know about what’s going on with your business. You’re able to say what you want, and can talk about whatever topics are relevant and important at that point in time.

Starting a blog or using one effectively can sometimes be a challenging task. Plus, it can often be hard to find the time or the ability to make the most of blog marketing. However, there is help out there for people who need it. Marketing services and professional bloggers can offer the tools and assistance that any business needs to start or maintain a blog.

When you hire someone else to do your blog for you, you’ll find it very easy. You just need to see what’s out there, find out what you want or need, and go. It doesn’t matter what kind of business you have, because there is a blogger or blog marketing service for you.

Why blog marketing? Blogs are nearly perfect as a marketing tool. They help to boost traffic, increase rankings, and get you noticed all over the internet. You can use specific keywords to improve your results, and it’s an easy and affordable way to generate traffic for your business.

Your business can be improved drastically by starting a blog. Sure, professional websites look great with professional content. However, when you also have a blog where you can connect with ALL of your visitors on a more informal level, you will definitely reap the rewards. Regardless of what business you’re in, blog marketing can help you in many different ways.

To learn more about blog marketing, or to get started with your own blog today, visit www.Majon.com.

It’s been more than two years since Google’s last big big to enter a government-regulated offline business. They offered some $4.6B for wireless spectrum in an auction in 2008, but it seemed that the multi-billion bid was merely a ploy to get some of their demands for the spectrum met. But that’s not quite the case with Google’s recent application to buy and sell power “much like utility companies do,” according to the New York Times . Google told the Federal Energy Regulation Commission that they need this capability to support their power-hungry facilities with more renewable energy sources. Google created a subsidiary last month, Google Energy, to handle this. As the NYT points out, this isn’t Google’s first look at energy: This is hardly Google’s first foray into the energy world. Over the years, Google has invested in renewable energy projects through its philanthropic and venture capital units. It has also embarked on a number of engineering projects and partnerships to, for example, advance plug-in hybrids and offer tools to measure home electricity usage. And it has an ambitious goal to help develop renewable energy that is cheaper than coal. Bill Weihl, Google’s green energy czar, discussed many of those initiatives and goals in a lengthy interview with The New York Times published on Thursday. Google insists that they’re not getting into the market to trade energy, but if their application is approved, they could sell any surplus energy they own. What do you think? Is this just Google’s carbon-neutrality quest, or a back-door entry into another market?

Go here to see the original:
Google Applies to Enter Energy Market