The common accepted mantra of the social media and digital platforms is “open”. Your ecosystem should be open and free to all. This is an effective strategy when your goal is to get mass numbers of users. It’s not a great way to drive real revenue. More and more of these social media platforms are now becoming a “closed” environment (is Steve Jobs right in believing that it takes a closed environment to offer the best customer experience?).

For example, Facebook has become increasingly more controlling of it’s environment. Their rules change almost weekly and they are constantly floating balloons to see what can they get away with in reducing or restricting user rights and options and getting more “liberal” with how they view your content as theirs. Many other social media sites are evolving to become closed environments. Twitter is the most recent to turn close their ecosystem. In late 2012, PeopleBrowser sued Twitter and won an initial judgement in court. Twitter had marketed their platform to third party developers as a “social utility”, opened up their ecosystem and granted access of their database of tweets to all, for a fee. PeopleBrowser spent millions of dollars and man hours in development based on the promise from Twitter of openness. The reason why Twitter would make this as part of their brand promise is to help ensure their survival by having as many third party developers to contribute and enlarge their ecosystem.

Here are two points I would like to make concerning the evolution of social media going closed:

1. Brands must spread out their bets – This is common sense, but too often, many get caught up in the flavor-of-the-month and dump most, or all, of their marketing budget into one or two channels. This is especially tempting since you only pay relatively a small amount to gain access to their data about users. Once that ecosystem is closed off, you’ve invested time and money into a marketing program that is now rendered useless. Use all of the channels that make sense and are available to you. No need to make an all or nothing bet just because it’s the newest thing to do.

2. Don’t build your business around a single ecosystem – If you create your brand or product based on a single platform, you’re asking to be put out of business. Zynga is a prime example. They built their empire solely on Facebook. Now, they are losing users and money and are scrambling to diversify onto other platforms and become more independent. It won’t be easy and it may be too late. You endanger your brand because you don’t own the platform and are dependent that they follow through on their promise to stay open and keep the data flowing. As in life, things change over time. It’s inevitable.

These lessons applies to all ecosystems, Twitter, Pintrest, Amazon, Ford, Starbucks. At any time, the platform owner can close the system and leave your business shut out in the cold. Avoid this by not putting all you bets onto a single system, but integrate your marketing approach and be constantly adapting and changing.

www.bebranded.net
317-797-7226

Since many marketers use or associate with Facebook, I thought providing a brief summary of Facebook policies for brands would be useful. This comes courtesy of Winston & Strawn, LLP, a law firm in Chicago. A partner of the firm, Brian Heidelberger, took the time to read the full terms and policies and provided an overview summary that is concise and helpful.

Terms governing your brand page – 
• Brands may:
– Post or link to a poliy about what content it will remove
– What user actions may cause Brand to band the user
• Brands may NOT:
– threaten legal action
– Claim rights to user content posted on their page

Cover photo on your brand page – 
• Brands can NOT include:
– Price or purchase information
– Contact information
– References to Facebook features or actions
– Call to action

Conducting Promotions (contests, sweepstakes) – 
• Must be “administered” in a Facebook platform application (collecting enries, conducting drawings, judging, notifying winners)
• App can not include features found on the main page, such as a “Like” button
• Game rules must include:
– A release of Facebook
– Disclaimer of affiliation
– Notice that entrant is providing personal information to the Brand and not to Facebook
• Must notify winners via their email
• Must  have your own private policy

Do’s and Don’ts of conducting promotions – 
• Brand may NOT use any native Facebook functionality as a method of entry:
– Prohibited: “Like our page to enter”
– Allowed: “Like our page and then enter”
– Prohibited: “Post a photo on our page to enter”
– Allowed: “Post a photo on our app to enter”
–Prohibited: “We’ll randomly select a Facebook fan of the day to win a prize.”
– Allowed: “We’ll randomly select a Facebook fan of the day (no prize)”

Collecting personal information (PI) – 
• Brands must
– Give notice that entrant is providing PI to the Brand and NOT to Facebook
– Have their own privacy policy with URL on its canvas or web site in the Developer App privacy field
• Must gain consent of user before collecting
• Must only collect PI on app, not on their Facebook main page
• Brand may NOT:
– Use concepts that undermine Facebook (encouraging users to remove friends, take over profiles, tag anything other than real people)
– Automatically post user PI upon submission. Brands must obtain consent using check box explaining content will be shared

Making offers
• Brands MUST:
– Comply with laws and disclose restrictions
– Communicate with any participating merchant over offer made by the Brand relating to such merchant
– Not use Facebook’s offer creator to offer the equivalent of a gift card, gift certificate or stored value card

Referral based rewards
• Brands may NOT:
– Directly tie incentives to the use of its social channels (rewarding for posting a stream story or sending a request)
• Brands MAY indirectly tie to the potential in-app reward

Permitted indirect tie incentive
• Incentive based on the number of friends that accept invite
– No rewards for sending, only potential to earn rewards if the user has friends who accept the invite

Place and “Like” incentives
• Places – Check in
– Brands MAY incentivize users to check-in places
– Brands may NOT use check-in to register users for a promotion
• Like button – Rewarding fans
– Brands MAY give incentives for “liking” provided the incentive is open to all new and existing users who Like your page
• Permitted incentives
– Coupons/rebates, exclusive content, eligibility to enter a promotion, donating to a charity based on number of page likes

Sponsored stories
• User “likes” a company, checks-in at one of its stores or performs certain other actions member’s picture/name appears as ad
• Facebook allows minors to opt out completely

Referencing Facebook in advertising
• Brands MAY:
– Make truthful references about presence on Facebook
• Say “Like our page” or “Become a fan by clicking Like on our page” (do not use “friend”)
• Brands may NOT:
– Imply endorsement by Facebook
– Link to pages other than the Facebook.com login page or your Brand page
– Do not use Facebook as a verb (Facebooking)

Use of Facebook logos and marks in advertising
• Brands may NOT:
– Use logos in broadcast advertising without permission
– Combine Facebook logos with other IP
– Use the full Facebook logo
– Use the Facebook “Like” button in online advertising
– Modify the “f” in the square logo
• Brands MAY:
– Use the the “Like” button in offline advertising

Use of screenshots in advertising
• Brands may NOT:
• Use screenshots without written permission from Facebook and the user
• Modify screenshots
• Use screenshots of user without consent

That’s about it. I hope you found some useful information you didn’t already know. Remember to “Like” us and win… our appreciation and thanks.

www.bebranded.net
317-797-7226

Technology and advertising are both, at odds with each other and dependent on each other. Companies such as Google, Facebook and Twitter each has shunned advertising in their beginnings calling it a form of “hucksterism”. They believed that “advertising” was a dirty word and their work was pure and holy. Now, that they’ve gotten millions of users by being free, with the exception of Google, almost all of social media has struggled to turn a profit. (In fact it took another company to develop the PPC model that Google “borrowed” and eventually had to settle out of court. So, even the mighty Google needed help to get into “advertising”.) The industry most tech companies have criticized and blamed for the downfall of mankind is now having to woo back because without the advertisers, they won’t be able to live on “free” too much longer.

One sign that the social media industry and online community is maturing is the pressure to make money, to be more than just a free service. Everyone knows in their head that the number of users are massive because the service is free. My guess is that many would lose 30-40% of their users if they had to pay with another 10-20% leaving on an annual basis forcing these companies to continually sell because of attrition. Many social media and tech companies are having a hard time justifying their valuation against real financial numbers (funny how data works that way.)

As more of these companies go public, they are now forced to play by a set of rules that most businesses have to, earn more money than you spend. Free is nice and great for the users, but horrible for business. The main problem is these companies were built without any intention of how to make money. I believe in the back of their heads they though advertising will save the day, but had no clue on how to incorporate it into their service without using a jackhammer and forcing it in. Now users feel like the ads on these sites are forced and unnatural. You know what? They are. One good thing is they put users first. The downside is they forgot all about the people who will eventually pay their bills, the advertisers.

The challenge most of these new media companies will have is how to make money and make it a priority. Many have never thought that way and their founders were not interested in making money. They often relegated non-engineer types to second class citizens while bestowing sainthood on their engineers. Just as Facebook is dealing with now, there will need to be an emphasis on advertisers. They will need to show as much caring and concern to the “dark side” as they do to their users because, without the advertisers, Facebook, and the other social media companies, will become a shell of who they are now.

It will be difficult for some to go from a socialistic society to a capitalistic enterprise, but if they are to survive in the next 5 years, they must make advertisers happy or just hope their initial investors don’t care about getting their money back.

www.bebranded.net
317-797-7226

The terms, “creating a brand” and “creating a buzz” are often used interchangeably, but that’s not correct and could lead to false expectations. Technology (the web) has contributed to this confusion. Occasionally, clients ask us to help them “create a buzz” so they can build their brand while others ask us to “help them build their brand by creating a buzz.” Both statements are incorrect and will set you up for under performing results and disappointment. The biggest difference is are you trying to build something that will last or are you trying to create a  spectacle? Here’s the difference:

Creating a brand – This involves “Consistency over time”. Brands are not built by spikes in PR with buzz in any medium, even social media. Once the hype and buzz is over, on to the next “YouTube” darling. Brands are built with a consistent message that is communicated through multiple ways, consistently, over time. Great brands are not an “overnight” sensation. That is a fad (think Silly Bands). Sure, that’s ok if all you want to do is sell a lot of stuff then disappear, but that’s not brand building. Brands goes deeper than just buzz or hype. It’s what you contribute to the human condition and the real reason why you exist.

Creating a buzz – Used properly, this tactic either helps jump start a new initiative or company and it helps restart an underperforming brand (think of it as a shock to the heart when a patient goes flatline.) Creating a buzz can be on purpose or happen by “accident”. It’s great when buzz happens organically. This is how revolutions are created, both politically, socially and commercially. Smart companies help this along by laying the ground work of building a great brand and giving people/customers something to believe in, rally around and be proud to be associated with.

The problem with believing that creating a buzz is the same as creating a brand is the shelf life. I’m all for creating a buzz, but not as my staple foundation to build a lasting company. Buzz just doesn’t last that long and no company has that many interesting things or news to say all in a row to keep up the buzz. What it can do is help create a quick shot of interest in my brand. There is a reason why it’s called “Buzz”, it’s the same as sugar. You get a quick high, then crash. It’s not sustainable. Brands are your “meat and potatoes”. It’s the foundation to build a healthy, long lasting company. Buzz, like dessert, is great for a change up and variety.

Buzz is extremely efficient at sales promotion, direct marketing and publicity, but these alone don’t build brands. If you’re always on sale, there’s no real value and you’re a commodity. And, no company has so many things going on that publicity can be their main strategic push. If you try, you run into the danger of “crying wolf”. Eventually, customers will ignore you because so many of your PR news and “buzz” will be boring or non-news. When you truly do have great information, that too, will be ignored.

When you are putting together your marketing strategy, don’t confuse the two and you’ll be able to leverage both, brand and buzz, to their fullest effectiveness. Keep in mind, brands, like people, don’t survive on “sugar” alone.

http://www.bebranded.net
317-797-7226

One of the common beliefs is traditional media, like TV, is more wasteful of marketing dollars than online and social media properties. The old joke of “I know half my money is wasted in advertising, but I don’t know which half.” comes from this idea. Yes, it is often hard to quantify how a TV spot affects sales since the power of TV is mostly in awareness and brand building and less about immediate sales. So, does that truly mean that new media channels such as Facebook are more effective in reaching your customers?

There is a new study out by Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, an Australia-based marketing think tank, about social media (Facebook in particular) and the interactions with brands. The results show that less than 1% of those who “like” or “fan” a brand on Facebook actually engage with the brand or even buy their products/services. They used one of Facebook’s own metrics they use to pitch advertisers to buy ads. It’s called,  ”People Talking About This” metric (it is definitely named by techies). The overall percentage using this metric, only 1.3% actually engage with a brand. Take into account new “likes” which only require a click on the “like” button (this is similar to TV ratings in a researcher’s mind), subtract that number and you end up with 0.45% of people actually engage with a brand on Facebook. This is even less than many TV properties.

It seems the myth of new media and social media is more effective doesn’t hold true. This also doesn’t mean that, with proper use and expectations of these tools, they couldn’t be an important part of your overall strategy. The main point is many marketers are much more “forgiving” on the numbers for newer marketing channels than they are for traditional media. Many also forget that regardless of how new or old a marketing channel is, the real effectiveness is in the proper use of that tool, not just because it’s new. Facebook (and others of their ilk) provides reach. This is the same as traditional TV. You’re not going to generate massive direct sales from Facebook, just like TV. Facebook is not going to generate armies of loyal customers, just like TV. What Facebook will do much better is give you solid numbers and data that you are only truly engaging only 0.45% of your “fan” base. That’s something TV can’t do, but we all knew that instinctively anyway. Now someone can actually prove what you thought. It is the ability to get hard data that lead many marketers to believe they are more “effective” online than in traditional media. Which is more effective, 0.45% reach on Facebook or 0.45% reach on TV?

The main thing to keep in mind is don’t relax your standards just because it’s new media and just being on there makes you feel like you are a more effective marketer. Know the strengths and weaknesses new and social media have and work them into your marketing plan appropriately. There is no silver bullet, even in the digital world. The only difference, you can get data that tells you that your effectiveness isn’t what you though it was.

www.branded.net
317-797-7226

“If you pay for it, you’re the customer. If it’s free, you’re the product.” This is the core of what social media and some of these other “free” sites are. It’s a very interesting concept to think about. There is an explosion of Facebook wannabe’s. Twitter, Pinterest, Pandora, Instagram, Last FM, etc., etc., etc. Many have VC money thrown at it in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The common thread with all of these is none of them are profitable. Many are still wondering how they are going to make money.

With this as a backdrop, how do you feel being the product? None of these sites will ever hope to figure out how to make money unless millions of us freely post our photos, comments, and friend each other. Because it’s free to the public, it will be hard to ask for a fee and not have a mass exodus of users. We only will tolerate so many text ads, online commercials, and banner ads before the site loses it’s charm and appeal. But, without the general public, they have no product, in spite of the cool technology and platform they have created. The only real asset they have is to leverage our personal data.

There in lies the rub. It’s ok if we share it, it’s not ok if you sell it. The ironic thing about this symbiotic relationship is the technology is not the product, we are. It’s like we are the cattle in the walled garden built by the social media entrepreneurs. There is still a lot of experimenting and dipping-the-toe-in-the-water by marketers. How do you insert your brand into the conversation without becoming the “creepy uncle who just crashed your Facebook page”? How can a brand stay authentic without selling, knowing ultimately, sales need to come from the investment in the site?

There are equally challenging questions on the social media side. How do I actually make money without pissing off millions of my users? If we don’t eventually make money, how long will the VC’s sucker up and keep pumping money into my site? If we do start making money, will be an outcast from the social media ethos club? And does that really matter?

An answer that comes to mind is the answer for both brands and sites: Pay me. The general public is the real asset here, so why not reward them. If you are a brand, reward me for engaging with your brand. Even if it’s to tell you how bad your customer service is on twitter. At least I cared enough to complain. Just asking me to “like” your brand isn’t rewarding. In fact, it’s stupid. Give me something of value so your brand has a chance to be special to me. If you are the social media site, just letting me use the platform is not enough anymore. There are too many new sites coming online every quarter. Just because you’re hot today, doesn’t mean you will be in 18 months. (MySpace, Digg, Groupon anyone?) If I’m the product, I deserve additional benefits as well as monetary rewards. If I’m the product, then what’s in it for me?

Some sites have been toying with the idea of offering all their users a cut of the financial action if they sell their data. It may be just nickels and dimes, but at least they recognize that it is our data and we are the product to advertisers. The privacy laws are going to increase the pressure on this issue of who’s data (product) is it anyway. So, how do I stay authentic, but still make money? As a brand or as a social media site, if you can navigate this question, you may unlock the mystery that has, thus far, been out of reach of the hundreds of social media sites.

Show me the data. Show me the money.

www.bebranded.net
317-797-7226

Since the advent of new media and social media, many of the digital faithful have sounded the demise of traditional media. I know it’s cool and hip to say, “We no longer use TV, print, or radio for our advertising. Instead we use Facebook, SEO, and apps.” But, just the opposite is happening. New media and digital advertising is not disintermediating traditional media, but it is reinforcing it. Here are a few examples:

• Online videos still sell TV ads – In order to “make money” online video sites sell commercials that are imbedded into their videos.

• Digital companies still sell ads – Yes, it’s called “display ads”, but they are not much different than billboards or print ads. In fact, display ads are now considered “old”.

• Tablet formats still sell print ads – iPads and Kindle’s Fire have given new life to traditional publications and to print ads.Yes, they are now interactive, but they still act like print ads in magazines.

Another phenomenom is many digital companies like Google and Pandora are selling traditional media. Google sells remnant print and TV ads. Pandora sells radio spots. Google and Apple are getting into the traditional TV arena and are ramping up their sales force to sell… (wait for it…) traditional TV ads.

What’s interesting is, instead of eliminating traditional media, digital media is turning to it for revenue and influence. Even mobile mostly depends on selling ads and coupons to make money. The problem with most of the new media, social media included, is they are realizing that just because you have hundreds of thousands of viewers, this doesn’t automatically translate into sales. This is why many online companies are still losing money. Facebook is losing hundreds of millions of dollars every year. This is why they bluntly ask users to advertise with them to keep Facebook free. Groupon lost over $414 million in 2010. Twitter is losing so much money and still haven’t found a reliable revenue source, that Co-founder Ev Williams was booted out of his own company.

Thus far, instead of dealing a death blow to traditional media, new media is turning to it to generate real revenue and not just “friends” and “likes”. The advantage new media has is it’s data and niche targeting capabilities, but they’ve yet figured out how to turn that into gold.

Good thing they didn’t kill traditional media.

www.bebranded.net
317-797-7226

In social media, it is hard to tell what is that really worth. For example, do you know how much a facebook “like” is worth or a Linkedin “connection” is valued at? Because the social media world is still very new, everyone is trying to see the real dollar value beyond the stories and occasional exceptions we all experience from time to time.

I recently saw a report from a memo by the Twitter Advertising Department. It stated that the Cost Per Follower (CPF) for promoted accounts is anywhere from $2.50 – $4.00 per person. For those who may not know, promoted accounts are ones who Twitter suggests users to follow – “Hey if you like your friend, Holly’s Twitter Feed, you’ll gonna love the Tweets from Hollister.”

Here are some broad stroke averages for Cost Per Customer (CPC) by marketing method:

• Google Adwords – $319.17
• Web sites – $101.23
• Email marketing – $6.00
• Attending networking events – $118.62

I only included new and alternative marketing channels since that is what many business are most interested in. Here are a few reasons why I find the Twitter memo and the CPC data interesting:

1. It confirms my belief that social media isn’t really free. If it’s done well, it’s typically not free. Not only do you have fees to the social media sites, but the cost of labor for your staff, or you, to keep on top of the feeds and content. (Just as this blog takes considerable time for me to devote to on a consistent basis.)

2. Even though it’s targeted, the ROI is not as cheap as you may think. Yes, I think new media and social media has given us marketers a great tool in allowing us to laser focus our efforts, but the information doesn’t support the belief of social media and new media is cheap or free. The tools are free. To use them are free, but to get real leverage out of them, it takes investment as in other traditional forms of marketing.

3. Marketing is still #1. What I mean by that, without marketing, you will not be in business for very long. It is rare that a company exists for very long without it. Most start ups survive by word-of-mouth at the beginning.  They can even grow to a respectable size without marketing. But, eventually, to sustain the business and to take it to a higher level takes investment in marketing, online or offline. Even anti-marketing Google has invested millions of dollars over the last 6-7 years in traditional and online advertising.

By not buying into the myth that social media and online marketing is free, a business can adapt a different mindset by investing in paid tools for these new platforms in harmony with their investment in other marketing tactics.

www.bebranded.net
317-797-7226

Twitter is looking for a good, old-fashion PR firm to help it connect better with the public. I’m sure many of you thought that Twitter was already well connected to the masses. Well, according to their CEO, Dick Costolo, Twitter still has a ways to go in becoming mainstream. Twitter is still looking for a mainstream voice (read: Brand). They don’t have one. It’s still seen as a cool social media play that appeals to the young and hip as well as those who want to be seen as young and hip. The problem is, Twitter still isn’t mainstream. Competition from the likes of Google+ and Facebook has also put Twitter under pressure to define a real brand voice and proactively reach out to the public.

Why the concern? Twitter is still losing cash and has only been technically profitable for 1 year because of a deal with Microsoft and Google. It made $25mil. in 2009. (of course, that is if you don’t take into account it still owed investor money of $155mil at the time). Twitter is still trying to prove it has a brand voice that mainstream will pay attention to in order to gain the confidence of advertisers and big brands that they are a relevant vehicle for advertising. (Funny how many of the internet elite shun the advertising industry and put them down for “interrupting” their customer’s experience with advertising, but they still look to them to be their knight in shinning armor when it comes to generating revenue. Very hypocritical to me, but that’s another point for another time.) Thus far, without mainstream credibility, Twitter will continue to bleed cash as many of the popular social networks and online sites. Eventually, all of these “free” platforms will have to figure a way to make money or otherwise, their pool of VC money will dry up. No one can keep funding a business that loses money forever, no matter how cool.

This factor is the driving force for Twitter to seek “traditional” marketing’s help. Believe it or not, traditional marketing is still very effective when it comes to reaching and communicating to the masses. Even Amazon needed old-fashioned billboards to help make it the powerhouse it is today. Twitter, like all of the other free platforms, are beginning to realize they have to start making money like a real business, and soon. Otherwise, their free ride will come to a close as investors can not keep pumping cash in without getting any return. Unlike the internet, there are limits to how much capital is available.

So, if the social media darling Twitter realizes they need to truly market to become profitable, it stands to reason, most other traditional businesses need to market even more aggressively. Without it, you eventually end up becoming irrelevant. Just ask MySpace.

www.bebranded.net
317-797-7226

Social media has become the cornerstone for many businesses’ strategy in getting new customers, especially among small business. It is true that social media can help significantly, your bottom line if used properly. The key phrase is “used properly”. Unfortunately, many businesses have bought into the myth that social media is “marketing” and that it is “free”. Neither are true. Here are a few lies that are circulating about social media. This list comes from Penelope Trunk, author and entrepreneur. I will paraphrase and add in my viewpoints, but, for the most part, I agree with her assessment.

1. Linkedin is for networking – Most people understand that networking is an important part of growing a business. This is more true for start ups than large established companies. Most people believe that a great networking tool is Linkedin. Sorry to burst your bubble, is not. Networking is built on relationships. Relationships are built on conversations. Linkedin is not made for conversations. Linkedin’s real asset is being able to display your network. The concept of “it’s who you hang out with” that Linkedin gains it’s value. You have to build your network offline before you can leverage it online. For example, it’s common to get a “Recommend Me” request via Linkedin from someone you’ve only met once or even not at all. They only know you virtually. That is not a real recommendation. That is not real networking.

2. Twitter is for conversation – Twitter is a great index of finding people with like interests. It used to be that you needed to go through laborious searches or talk to everyone at a conference just to find a few people with like interests. Twitter makes that easy, now. What Twitter isn’t is a conversation tool for networking. You need way more than 140 characters to carry on a meaningful conversation. As stated before, conversation is what true networking is. You still need to go offline to solidify the Twitter touchpoint in order to really call them a colleague and have them as a genuine contact.

3. Blogs are personal journals – The real purpose of a blog (as it pertains to networking and business) is for you to show the world how you think and why you think it. It forces you to think in a disciplined way on how you organize and express your thoughts about your company, your products, the marketplace, and even yourself. Blogging is not networking. Networking is a two way street, not a one way monolog. As Penelope puts it, “The blogosphere is a cocktail party for the intelligentsia. Make sure you are a part of that so that you can help shape ideas as they grow. There’s no better tool for PR than wielding influence as a blogger.” It’s best at PR, not networking. We use blogs as a way to display to prospects and clients how we think about marketing. If they like what they read, we get a shot at their business. That’s PR, not networking.

4. With social media, you can get people to [fill in the blank] – Social media is about being giving and being generous. Asking them to “download this” or “test out our free that”, is not giving. Giving is asking people how you can help them reach their goals, both personal and professional. Penelope recommends that you should read up on someone enough so you can get to know them a little better and see how you can help with better understanding of who they are. That’s real giving. Getting someone to do something is all fine and good, but that’s marketing, not social media.

5. It’s free – Just because you can do it yourself doesn’t mean you’re effective. The trap that most small business fall into is they use social media as their marketing because it’s “free”. They get thousands of “likes”, tens-of-thousands of hits on their web site, and gazillions of followers. Ask those same people about how many of those “virtual friends” are real network partners, many will have to admit they have relationships with only less than 5% of their “contacts”. To get excellent at social media, you need skill, insight, and most of all, discipline. Like any tool, it takes a professional approach to leverage it for all it’s worth. A chainsaw in the hands of an amateur is just a hack job. Excellent social media professionals charge a fee. It’s not free. Even if you or your company does it themselves, there is time investment. That’s time you’re not selling and really networking and that’s money not finding it’s way to you.

Don’t use social media as a crutch for real networking. You still have to put in the sweat equity in actually meeting real people and spend time getting to know them. Finally, don’t fall into folly of thinking social media is marketing. It is not. Marketing is about helping make sales easier and reaching potential customers. Social media is about giving, not selling.

www.bebranded.net
317-797-7226