A friend wrote a long note the other day. I should tell you that this person used to be a close friend 10 years ago but we kind of fell out of touch as that can happen. Here's what he wrote:
I was laid off from my company in November of 2008. For over 180 days I've been job searching, job hunting, calling, emailing, job boarding, and networking. I've rewritten my resume 12 different ways, designed a half dozen cover letters, dealt with dozens of recruiters and head hunters. I've been through out placement counseling and I'm just starting to see some possibilities of full time employment.
To say it's "tough" out there is an understatement.
On top of everything I've been re-inventing myself.
I spent 27 years in traditional media sales. Primarily in the radio business. I've sold and managed both locally and nationally. I've overseen budgets of 20 million to 350 million dollars and have had as many as 20 people reporting to me. Big whup!
The radio business has been shrinking as more and more marketers put their marketing dollars to work on line. Search, banner placement, video, Mobil and social media marketing are all where the budgets are growing. Traditional media like TV, Radio, Newspaper and even Outdoor are showing double digits decline as the the two pronged punch of the economy and the Internet explosion (round 2) has been changing the way marketers have been spending their money.
So...I decided at age 50 to re-invent myself. A scary proposition at this age and at this time. But... as the saying goes "If not me, then whom. If not now, then when". I started by subscribing to multiple blogs and web sites in the interactive community. I signed up for a digital class with Leslie Laredo of the Laredo Group which I highly recommend for anyone interested in learning about the nuts and bolts of buying and selling in the interactive space. She can be reached through www.laredogroup.com.
Armed with all my new knowledge I set out for interviews in SEM (search engine marketing), Ad Networks, Ad Exchanges, Social Media Marketing companies and generally anything that I thought I'd qualify for through my sales background in Interactive Media Sales.
Sadly while I prepared myself well, could walk and talk the talk I was faced with the classic objection "I'm sorry but you don't have experience in this space". I have a half dozen ways to deal with that but in an era where layoffs within the Interactive/Digital space are high (not as high as the general market but still high), I have not been able to land in the space I'd like.
So...Here's my feeling at this point. I've got to get back to work full time so I'm inclined to go back to what I know even though it may not have long term benefits. In the meantime, I will continue my education and keep my networking and I know at some point I will get into the space that I see has long term potential.
It's tough but I'm going to persevere.
I loved his note and I immediately replied back to "hang in there" and "stay confident". What I really meant to say is WOW! How courageous you are for doing that. It's hard, especially on the back half of your career to re-invent yourself. Nothing is more daunting than going into something new. That said, I believe in my friend and I know he will succeed.
If this has any bearing on you I say the same thing. Keep learning. Keep growing. Keep asking questions and keep focused. It will pay off.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Bad Coaching
"Come on Dad, I want to go home". My daughter barked those words after her softball team got beat (again) last night. "So...why the long face" as I turned the key in the car. "I don't want to talk about it" she said (a sure fire response to a pathetic question). Moments later however, she was all talk and I (the leadership/management executive) was all ears.
Turns out her softball coach, tired of losing and pissed off about how the teams is playing called them "losers" and that they "stink". Now these are 12 year old girls in 6th grade and being 12 and impressionable that was probably not the right thing for the coach to say.
My wife and I have some issues during the season with the coach, like when he sent out an email lambasting the kids who "weren't trying" and making the game "difficult for the kids who were". Kind of a passive aggressive approach to dealing with frustration some would say.
But calling 12 year old girls "losers" and that the team "stinks" reminds me of a manager I once worked for who told me that "if business didn't turn around, heads would roll". I never understood that kind of thinking. While change might be needed and heads might indeed have to roll (starting with the manager I thought then) it was completely inappropriate to lambast the group publicly. The softball coach shouldn't have addressed the girls that way and Managers who address their staffs that way can't see the forest through the trees.
Every team, business, office has problems. Effeciency is never optimal and winning is allusive and difficult in the best of times. Today, is certainly not the best of times. So...rather then tell everyone they "stink" or their "losers", rather than publicly criticize others in a public forum the best managers and leaders deal with specific issues with specific players and COACH them to better outcomes.
This would seem so obvious it shouldn't need to be said, but too many people who profess to lead people never figure that. They key to changing a losing proposition into a winning one is individual/one-on-one coaching. It's identifying the shortcomings and working with those individuals to overcome them. When that is done the individual improves and the team improves. It's hard but it's the only way long term and sustaining success is built.
"I'm not playing softball next year" my daughter barked as she was finished venting about the coach. "I understand sweatheart" I said. Inside though I was furious and I wanted to drive back and tell the coach "don't you understand how unmotivating you are". But...I don't feel it's my place and as I told my daughter, "honey, there are good coaches and bad coaches. That's the way it is in life. Hopefully, we can get you on a team with a better leader." "You mean coach she said". "Yes honey, I meant coach.
Turns out her softball coach, tired of losing and pissed off about how the teams is playing called them "losers" and that they "stink". Now these are 12 year old girls in 6th grade and being 12 and impressionable that was probably not the right thing for the coach to say.
My wife and I have some issues during the season with the coach, like when he sent out an email lambasting the kids who "weren't trying" and making the game "difficult for the kids who were". Kind of a passive aggressive approach to dealing with frustration some would say.
But calling 12 year old girls "losers" and that the team "stinks" reminds me of a manager I once worked for who told me that "if business didn't turn around, heads would roll". I never understood that kind of thinking. While change might be needed and heads might indeed have to roll (starting with the manager I thought then) it was completely inappropriate to lambast the group publicly. The softball coach shouldn't have addressed the girls that way and Managers who address their staffs that way can't see the forest through the trees.
Every team, business, office has problems. Effeciency is never optimal and winning is allusive and difficult in the best of times. Today, is certainly not the best of times. So...rather then tell everyone they "stink" or their "losers", rather than publicly criticize others in a public forum the best managers and leaders deal with specific issues with specific players and COACH them to better outcomes.
This would seem so obvious it shouldn't need to be said, but too many people who profess to lead people never figure that. They key to changing a losing proposition into a winning one is individual/one-on-one coaching. It's identifying the shortcomings and working with those individuals to overcome them. When that is done the individual improves and the team improves. It's hard but it's the only way long term and sustaining success is built.
"I'm not playing softball next year" my daughter barked as she was finished venting about the coach. "I understand sweatheart" I said. Inside though I was furious and I wanted to drive back and tell the coach "don't you understand how unmotivating you are". But...I don't feel it's my place and as I told my daughter, "honey, there are good coaches and bad coaches. That's the way it is in life. Hopefully, we can get you on a team with a better leader." "You mean coach she said". "Yes honey, I meant coach.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Hiring talented sales people
So much has been written about hiring sales people. In commission jobs there takes a unique and highly specialized individual necessary to be successful in selling.
In my 20 years of managing sellers in the Media Sales space (radio and cable tv) I've concluded there are certain characteristics that come close to insuring success. Consider these:
o Achievers: people who believe everyday starts at zero. They must “achieve” something to be successful. In this case it’s getting appointments, making presentations, closing business that achievers feel an innate success with.
o Adaptability: You have a plan. You want execute it but nearly every day you’re thrown off your plan because of unforeseen circumstances. I look for people that have the quality of adaptability AND still can accomplish their plan.
o Arranger: I look for people who can keep their appointments, write a piece of copy, get the order into the business office and then into traffic while keeping their one on one appointments and making sure their clients get their times. Being able to multi-task is vital and those that can do it successfully succeed.
o Belief: The power to believe in the product and the direction of the company is vital. Successful sales people have astonishing power of belief and do not let internal situations or outside influences change their view of the product value. I look for people who have “passion” of belief.
o Courage: This is one of the most important traits a successful seller can have. The ability to block out everything negative and continue to make calls in the face of adversity. Courage requires belief and high achievers are often people with high courage. I look for examples of this when interviewing. If they display this characteristic then they have the potential to be an A player.
o Connectedness (or Relator): I pride myself on being a good judge of character. I have a B.S. meter and I look for inconsistencies with people. When I find someone who is consistent, passionate and confident but also open to learn, observe and grow then I find a “connected” person or a person that can relate to others. In sales this is so critical because you have to understand a prospect, a customer and be able to connect immediately and over a long period of time.
o Discipline: Sales is hard work because you are always trying to build on your previous day’s work. It takes the right discipline and attitude towards being disciplined to be successful. It means not making excuses. It means playing hurt sometimes. It means NOT letting negativity encroach in your daily responsibilities. Being disciplined everyday with an unwavering commitment to succeed are key areas of success in sales.
o Empathy: I look for people that demonstrate this quality. While there is a chance of being overly empathetic I would rather have someone that knows how to walk in the other guys shoes then have little concept of what moves, triggers and engages others.
o Focus: Akin to discipline but slightly different. Discipline means you wake up in the morning and regardless of your situation attack the day because you must. Focus is the detail behind that attack. It’s not only knowing that “you have to make calls”, It’s knowing the 20 calls you are going to make, the focus to get 2 appointments by lunch and the NOT putting something off (like collections for example) because it’s hard. Focus on the tasks but flexible at the same time.
o Ideation: This is a quality that is not a must but a nice thing to have. Someone who possesses this quality is always thinking about ways to improve their situation and can creatively engage others towards that idea. I feel drawn to people that have this quality and I know clients prefer individuals who have it too.
o Individualization: No two people are alike and therefore being able to understand individuals, what makes them think and how to appeal to them “individually” is a critical element in sales.
o Positivity: Nothing brings down a sales department more than “Mr. Negativity”. I like to see people with smiling faces and good attitudes. I know it’s not possible to always do that but people’s personality generally leans positive or negative. Through conversation and questions I can determine people’s polar leanings.
o Responsibility: I was taught at an early age to be responsible for your actions and to seek additional responsibility because you will grow as a human being. I don’t want people that do not understand this concept, especially the “being responsible for ones actions part”. It is a non-negotiable point. We all must accept the responsibilities we are given and if we do we will develop our sales much better.
o Self-Assurance (Ego). I want self assured people. I want a staff of confident individuals. Sometimes it’s a quiet self assurance sometimes it’s not. I’m ok with both. Self assurance can be cocky but it also can be a driving factor in people’s success.
o Strategic: This goes to their discipline and their focus. I look for circumstances that they apply a thought out strategy for success. There are times when they will fail but being strategic in your thought process will more times than not lead to success.
Other characteristics that I look for but don’t necessarily hire to are:
o Analytical, Developer, Maximizer and Command.
So these are the things I look for in hiring an individual. It is my own “Gallup” test and I have found it to be very successful. The staffs I've built were built around these qualities. Possessing these qualities doesn’t guarantee success it just guarantees that they have a higher propensity for success.
In my 20 years of managing sellers in the Media Sales space (radio and cable tv) I've concluded there are certain characteristics that come close to insuring success. Consider these:
o Achievers: people who believe everyday starts at zero. They must “achieve” something to be successful. In this case it’s getting appointments, making presentations, closing business that achievers feel an innate success with.
o Adaptability: You have a plan. You want execute it but nearly every day you’re thrown off your plan because of unforeseen circumstances. I look for people that have the quality of adaptability AND still can accomplish their plan.
o Arranger: I look for people who can keep their appointments, write a piece of copy, get the order into the business office and then into traffic while keeping their one on one appointments and making sure their clients get their times. Being able to multi-task is vital and those that can do it successfully succeed.
o Belief: The power to believe in the product and the direction of the company is vital. Successful sales people have astonishing power of belief and do not let internal situations or outside influences change their view of the product value. I look for people who have “passion” of belief.
o Courage: This is one of the most important traits a successful seller can have. The ability to block out everything negative and continue to make calls in the face of adversity. Courage requires belief and high achievers are often people with high courage. I look for examples of this when interviewing. If they display this characteristic then they have the potential to be an A player.
o Connectedness (or Relator): I pride myself on being a good judge of character. I have a B.S. meter and I look for inconsistencies with people. When I find someone who is consistent, passionate and confident but also open to learn, observe and grow then I find a “connected” person or a person that can relate to others. In sales this is so critical because you have to understand a prospect, a customer and be able to connect immediately and over a long period of time.
o Discipline: Sales is hard work because you are always trying to build on your previous day’s work. It takes the right discipline and attitude towards being disciplined to be successful. It means not making excuses. It means playing hurt sometimes. It means NOT letting negativity encroach in your daily responsibilities. Being disciplined everyday with an unwavering commitment to succeed are key areas of success in sales.
o Empathy: I look for people that demonstrate this quality. While there is a chance of being overly empathetic I would rather have someone that knows how to walk in the other guys shoes then have little concept of what moves, triggers and engages others.
o Focus: Akin to discipline but slightly different. Discipline means you wake up in the morning and regardless of your situation attack the day because you must. Focus is the detail behind that attack. It’s not only knowing that “you have to make calls”, It’s knowing the 20 calls you are going to make, the focus to get 2 appointments by lunch and the NOT putting something off (like collections for example) because it’s hard. Focus on the tasks but flexible at the same time.
o Ideation: This is a quality that is not a must but a nice thing to have. Someone who possesses this quality is always thinking about ways to improve their situation and can creatively engage others towards that idea. I feel drawn to people that have this quality and I know clients prefer individuals who have it too.
o Individualization: No two people are alike and therefore being able to understand individuals, what makes them think and how to appeal to them “individually” is a critical element in sales.
o Positivity: Nothing brings down a sales department more than “Mr. Negativity”. I like to see people with smiling faces and good attitudes. I know it’s not possible to always do that but people’s personality generally leans positive or negative. Through conversation and questions I can determine people’s polar leanings.
o Responsibility: I was taught at an early age to be responsible for your actions and to seek additional responsibility because you will grow as a human being. I don’t want people that do not understand this concept, especially the “being responsible for ones actions part”. It is a non-negotiable point. We all must accept the responsibilities we are given and if we do we will develop our sales much better.
o Self-Assurance (Ego). I want self assured people. I want a staff of confident individuals. Sometimes it’s a quiet self assurance sometimes it’s not. I’m ok with both. Self assurance can be cocky but it also can be a driving factor in people’s success.
o Strategic: This goes to their discipline and their focus. I look for circumstances that they apply a thought out strategy for success. There are times when they will fail but being strategic in your thought process will more times than not lead to success.
Other characteristics that I look for but don’t necessarily hire to are:
o Analytical, Developer, Maximizer and Command.
So these are the things I look for in hiring an individual. It is my own “Gallup” test and I have found it to be very successful. The staffs I've built were built around these qualities. Possessing these qualities doesn’t guarantee success it just guarantees that they have a higher propensity for success.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Social Media Marketing: Good or Bad
There has been a lot written recently on the the use of Social Media Marketing as a tool for growing a business.
In the opinions of others and shared by me the truth of the matter is that it can be effective and it can be disasterous. Like anything else in business...Social Media Marketing is a tool that used properly will benifit it's users and used improperly can at worst kill a brand.
At the Web 2.0 Expo '09 Conference in San Francisco yesterday, Social media thought leaders Charlene Li, Jeremiah Owyang, and Peter Kim discussed the barriers to social media marketing, and how to encounter them without going "over capacity."
destinationCRM.com posted a blog written by Laureen McKay who paraphrased the 4 areas that most companies view Social Marketing around. They are:
1. "Social media doesn't match up with our corporate culture."
Social media participation requires change management, Li told the crowd, adding that any effective change management process takes years. Marketers often expect social initiatives to work right away -- and that's rarely how things pan out. Owyang said that social media involves a different model, one that most corporations aren't familiar with: It's a transformation from the classic top-down business model with the CEO at the top to a "bottom-up bubbling" with customers driving ideas and actions.
The transformation won't happen overnight -- especially if senior management isn't involved. "If you want cultural change, you have to get the big guns involved," Li said. "And the only way they'll see this working is if it's aligned to corporate goals."
Kim posed the question of whether it's a good idea for an organization to appoint a chief social officer to take on the pains and sole responsibility of social media marketing. Li said no. The burdens, she said, should essentially be collective and no one particular person should own social media. "That's the most thing dangerous to do, [to say] 'It's not my problem, it's someone else's,' " she said. "It's everyone's responsibility."
2. "My social media marketing campaigns aren't working."
"The biggest problem is using the word 'campaigns,'" Li emphasized. "This is not a campaign - it's a relationship with a customer." Owyang pointed out that a campaign implies a short-term effort. Social media, he said, needs to be long-term. Without long-term goals for social media, projects end up looking like interactive marketing with a social presence. With that in mind, Li brought up companies that often have Facebook fan pages that resemble press releases. The information is vapid and unchanging and there's little conversation.
For conversation to occur, Li said marketers must recognize a shift from "interruptions" to "collaborations." Kim expanded on that notion saying businesses need to change relationships not only with customers but with employees and external constituents, as well. "The way organizations are structured ... and the way they relate in an ecosystem has to be transformed in how we build relationships," he said.
3. "I don't know how to measure this stuff."
Kim said this is probably the biggest fail for marketers in general. Owyang agreed saying that most marketers are measuring social media incorrectly. "They are focusing on the measurements of yesteryear with click-throughs and page views," he said. Yet conversations are occurring in places where those metrics aren't available like on Facebook or on external blogs. "You don't have access to server logs on Facebook or blogs where the conversation spreads," he said. "Even if you have that, it's not effective enough to tell you what's happening."
Owyang relayed that things like page views and the number of comments don't measure emotion or the depth of discussion. He provided a nice automotive example of marketing metrics. "Measuring based on a dashboard is typically the way marketers measure," he said. They look at basic stats. "Instead," he said, "you should be measuring based on your GPS system -- it tells you where have you been, where are you now, and where you are going." In other words, Marketers need to begin listening, rather than just recording numbers.
Li contended that although it's tough to know what to measure with social media, you have to measure against other marketing metrics -- otherwise, it's going to get cut from the budget.
4. "I'm not sure social media matters, anyway."
Owyang made an interesting point in reference to the Motrin Mom ordeal that exploded on Twitter and the blogoshere in November 2008. For kicks, he asked the crowd who hadn't heard of the Motrin Mom occurrence -- a marketing campaign that infuriated moms and blew up on Twitter. Surprisingly, many attendees hadn't heard of the controversy. Owyang made the statement that despite the temporary reputation tarnish, the kerfuffle, essentially drew more people to Motrin's Web site and led to more searches for the brand. Did it lead to fewer purchases of Motrin pain reliever? Probably not. Li stated that at the core of Motrin Mom is the fact that Motrin didn't respond in a timely manner. What's important is that customers wanted to engage with Motrin at the time of outrage, but they couldn't.
The Motrin Mom campaign can be written off as a "social media fail," but that might not be a terrible thing for the brand. In fact, Owyang pointed out Dell's tremendous success now in social media, which essentially sprouted from many failed attempts. It's been a similar strategy for mega-brand Wal-Mart, as well, Li added. Wal-Mart, she said, has kept at it for years, picking itself up after failures and coming ahead stronger with its buyer blogs and mom communities. Kim summed it up by saying that social media might not have the implications on a brand that one would expect -- but it will -- and soon.
Within the conversation of social media fails, Owyang revealed what he sees to be as three main ways organizations interact with social media:
The "tire": Social media comes from the edges of the company and is authentic because there are key stakeholders who are interested and invested in furthering social media efforts. However, Owyang said, one side of the tire has no idea what the other side of the tire is thinking or doing -- and that can be a problem.
The "tower": This approach occurs when management wants to centralize social media. On the upside, this means that employees will have common strategies and resources. However, it "tends to look like rehashed press releases," Owyang said. It's not authentic and customers can tell.
The "hub-and-spoke" model: This is when people from different parts of the organization come together under a centralized goal, but they all link out to different business groups. It's cross-functional, yet not exactly centralized.
The critical element in all of these comments is that Social Media Marketing is an evolving entity that most companies (and individuals) do not fully understand yet. Going slowly, respecting the Social Network community and actively addressing the 4 points listed above can be the critical element in whether a companies "engagements" with it's customers are effective.
In the opinions of others and shared by me the truth of the matter is that it can be effective and it can be disasterous. Like anything else in business...Social Media Marketing is a tool that used properly will benifit it's users and used improperly can at worst kill a brand.
At the Web 2.0 Expo '09 Conference in San Francisco yesterday, Social media thought leaders Charlene Li, Jeremiah Owyang, and Peter Kim discussed the barriers to social media marketing, and how to encounter them without going "over capacity."
destinationCRM.com posted a blog written by Laureen McKay who paraphrased the 4 areas that most companies view Social Marketing around. They are:
1. "Social media doesn't match up with our corporate culture."
Social media participation requires change management, Li told the crowd, adding that any effective change management process takes years. Marketers often expect social initiatives to work right away -- and that's rarely how things pan out. Owyang said that social media involves a different model, one that most corporations aren't familiar with: It's a transformation from the classic top-down business model with the CEO at the top to a "bottom-up bubbling" with customers driving ideas and actions.
The transformation won't happen overnight -- especially if senior management isn't involved. "If you want cultural change, you have to get the big guns involved," Li said. "And the only way they'll see this working is if it's aligned to corporate goals."
Kim posed the question of whether it's a good idea for an organization to appoint a chief social officer to take on the pains and sole responsibility of social media marketing. Li said no. The burdens, she said, should essentially be collective and no one particular person should own social media. "That's the most thing dangerous to do, [to say] 'It's not my problem, it's someone else's,' " she said. "It's everyone's responsibility."
2. "My social media marketing campaigns aren't working."
"The biggest problem is using the word 'campaigns,'" Li emphasized. "This is not a campaign - it's a relationship with a customer." Owyang pointed out that a campaign implies a short-term effort. Social media, he said, needs to be long-term. Without long-term goals for social media, projects end up looking like interactive marketing with a social presence. With that in mind, Li brought up companies that often have Facebook fan pages that resemble press releases. The information is vapid and unchanging and there's little conversation.
For conversation to occur, Li said marketers must recognize a shift from "interruptions" to "collaborations." Kim expanded on that notion saying businesses need to change relationships not only with customers but with employees and external constituents, as well. "The way organizations are structured ... and the way they relate in an ecosystem has to be transformed in how we build relationships," he said.
3. "I don't know how to measure this stuff."
Kim said this is probably the biggest fail for marketers in general. Owyang agreed saying that most marketers are measuring social media incorrectly. "They are focusing on the measurements of yesteryear with click-throughs and page views," he said. Yet conversations are occurring in places where those metrics aren't available like on Facebook or on external blogs. "You don't have access to server logs on Facebook or blogs where the conversation spreads," he said. "Even if you have that, it's not effective enough to tell you what's happening."
Owyang relayed that things like page views and the number of comments don't measure emotion or the depth of discussion. He provided a nice automotive example of marketing metrics. "Measuring based on a dashboard is typically the way marketers measure," he said. They look at basic stats. "Instead," he said, "you should be measuring based on your GPS system -- it tells you where have you been, where are you now, and where you are going." In other words, Marketers need to begin listening, rather than just recording numbers.
Li contended that although it's tough to know what to measure with social media, you have to measure against other marketing metrics -- otherwise, it's going to get cut from the budget.
4. "I'm not sure social media matters, anyway."
Owyang made an interesting point in reference to the Motrin Mom ordeal that exploded on Twitter and the blogoshere in November 2008. For kicks, he asked the crowd who hadn't heard of the Motrin Mom occurrence -- a marketing campaign that infuriated moms and blew up on Twitter. Surprisingly, many attendees hadn't heard of the controversy. Owyang made the statement that despite the temporary reputation tarnish, the kerfuffle, essentially drew more people to Motrin's Web site and led to more searches for the brand. Did it lead to fewer purchases of Motrin pain reliever? Probably not. Li stated that at the core of Motrin Mom is the fact that Motrin didn't respond in a timely manner. What's important is that customers wanted to engage with Motrin at the time of outrage, but they couldn't.
The Motrin Mom campaign can be written off as a "social media fail," but that might not be a terrible thing for the brand. In fact, Owyang pointed out Dell's tremendous success now in social media, which essentially sprouted from many failed attempts. It's been a similar strategy for mega-brand Wal-Mart, as well, Li added. Wal-Mart, she said, has kept at it for years, picking itself up after failures and coming ahead stronger with its buyer blogs and mom communities. Kim summed it up by saying that social media might not have the implications on a brand that one would expect -- but it will -- and soon.
Within the conversation of social media fails, Owyang revealed what he sees to be as three main ways organizations interact with social media:
The "tire": Social media comes from the edges of the company and is authentic because there are key stakeholders who are interested and invested in furthering social media efforts. However, Owyang said, one side of the tire has no idea what the other side of the tire is thinking or doing -- and that can be a problem.
The "tower": This approach occurs when management wants to centralize social media. On the upside, this means that employees will have common strategies and resources. However, it "tends to look like rehashed press releases," Owyang said. It's not authentic and customers can tell.
The "hub-and-spoke" model: This is when people from different parts of the organization come together under a centralized goal, but they all link out to different business groups. It's cross-functional, yet not exactly centralized.
The critical element in all of these comments is that Social Media Marketing is an evolving entity that most companies (and individuals) do not fully understand yet. Going slowly, respecting the Social Network community and actively addressing the 4 points listed above can be the critical element in whether a companies "engagements" with it's customers are effective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
