How many times have you heard or read that companies should just forge ahead with a social media program even though the return on investment is hard to quantify? I’m not going to point fingers, but it’s been repeated so often it’s become the mantra of so-called social media experts.

This is really bad advice.

Social media is no different than any other type of marketing activity. It takes time and resources to write blogs and record podcasts, build followers on Twitter or create decent videos for YouTube. If you’re going to suck up those resources they had better bring demonstrable value that advances critical business goals. Without that grounding, you’re just wasting your time.

Every solid PR or marketing plan I worked on over the last decade or so began with a SWOT analysis linked back to business objectives, like establish a foothold in market X with this demographic, or protect our flanks in this segment Y from low-cost competitors.  From there we worked out strategies and tactics – that could involve a social media component –  and thought through a set of metrics to determine if the programs were successful.

A major advantage with social media compared to traditional PR is the abundance of tracking tools. You can see the number of re-tweets or Facebook Like button clicks and then drill down to better understand the type of traction you’re getting. Ideally these efforts generate more website traffic which leads to more business.

Social media is ultimately a tool, another arrow in the marketing quiver. If you combine it with solid business and marketing practices, the ROI is sure to follow.

I guess David Bowie had it right so many years ago. Change, so the saying goes, is inevitable in life. We change jobs, change clothes, and change hair styles. To me, though, it seems that I rarely hear about people who talk about how their profession has changed.

I’ve been in PR for over 20 years with almost all of that time focusing on the high tech industry. I remember the days of faxing information, waiting anxiously for the weekly hardcopy of InformationWeek to see if my client’s news had been covered, and watching the rise, fall, and rise again of Apple—I was at MacWorld ’97 when Steve Jobs returned. Needless to say, it’s been quite a ride but far from boring.

In fact, that’s one of the things I like most about working in the world of high tech PR. To a large extent technology dictates how we perform our jobs. The rise of social media in the past few years has had a  dramatic impact on how our industry functions. Mashable just published an interesting article about how technology, mostly social media, has changed many of the fundamental tools of our trade including press releases and the way we connect with members of the press and other influentials.

But what do these changes mean to your agency brand? Is your agency one to embrace change just to please a client or do you work in an environment that craves new ideas? I’ve had the good fortune to work both in-house on the corporate side and for a few agencies and I can honestly say that the places where technology and new ideas were adopted were the best places to be. Some people are resistant to change and sometimes waiting for the dust to settle is right move. But with it comes the risk getting marginalized and left behind.

The ability to learn, grow and develop is one of the things that gets me out of bed in the morning. What about you? What hooked you and keeps you in the PR world?

I remember a conversation I had with a colleague about 15 years ago when the Web was starting to become a mainstream part of our daily business world, especially in the high tech market. The person said that the Web was simply another distribution channel and she somewhat downplayed the importance that the Web would have in our daily lives. Boy was she wrong.

Fast forward to today and you have a much different picture. The Web is critical to our daily business lives, both in the B2B and B2C worlds. But it cannot be done in a vacuum. As analyst firm AMR said in a recent report, “Two thirds of B2B marketers believe that online must be complemented by traditional marketing activities.”

I’ve read articles and heard from multiple companies that “we need a social media plan.” The reality is this cannot be done as a standalone effort – it must be part of a larger marketing strategy. With experts like Forrester Research predicting a doubling in B2B interactive marketing spending by 2014, forward-thinking B2B and B2C companies need to continue to strengthen their online and social media talent with a combination of in-house and external resources. Sadly, BizReport says that 60 percent of B2B firms have no staff dedicated to social media compared with 54 percent of B2C players. Why is B2B lagging here?

My feeling is that we live in a results-oriented business community, not to mention a results-oriented society, which means we need numbers and validation. Gut instinct is fine but it’s hard to argue for social media-savvy staff members to the C-level executives if you can’t justify the benefits. To date, it has proven challenging to directly link things like re-tweets or blog posts to increased sales, especially for big-tickets items like database software or bulldozers.

Social media can be a great tool to help companies connect with their customers, partners and industry influencers and has potential to drive revenue growth. Whether you use an outside agency or take it in-house, a successful social media strategy must be part of the overall marketing plan for your company backed with real metrics.

How do you see social media strategies changing as they become an integral part of your marketing plan?

Over the past few years, anyone with a broadband connection has experience social media at some level. Some see it as a way to connect with random people while others see it as a way to connect with friends. In the business world, many see it as a waste of time and drain on corporate productivity, or worse a security risk. One thing for certain, you know that if your grandmother is out there using Facebook, social media has reached a whole new level. Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and YouTube have emerged as the new media. So it only makes sense that politicians have whole heartedly embraced social media. Why not?

Blogger Kyle Lacy noted “that President Obama showed the potential for success with the tying of politics and social media in the 2008 election with his millions of friends.” The recent mid-term elections showed us how savvy politicians use social media to their advantage. In fact, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ushered in the state’s new social media standard to make sure that state employees aren’t exposing the state to lawsuits…as well as keeping them productive.

Many new kids on the political block, in this case California Republican Governor nominee Meg Whitman, showed that utilizing new technologies to reach their audiences can indeed have a dramatic impact on the election process. As noted in a blog entry in Mashable:

As it stands, the social web is ripe with opportunities for candidates and office holders alike to connect with voters, foster transparency, and even spar with opponents in the same ways they have been in the traditional media for hundreds of years. We spoke with some innovators who have been tapping into the political power of social media. If their work is any indication, expect the future of elected government to be measured in fans and followers, as well as votes.

I find it interesting to watch the growth of the use of social media. From re-connecting with friends from high school, to showing the world images of political demonstrations, to sharing ideas with constituents during the election process, social media has changed the way we work in today’s world. At the same time, the role of the gatekeeper – the tough editor or journalist who filtered the story to understandable chunks – is greatly diminishing. Is this a good thing? Are we better off with social media, or is this leading us in a direction we might regret? For better or worse, it likely can’t be stopped.

I’ve always been a big believer in the KISS principle —keep it simple, stupid. In the high tech world it seems like things just keep getting more and more complicated. Sure, new products are launched to make our lives easier but why does it feel like my life is getting more cluttered?

That thought came to mind when I was speaking with a former colleague about customer reference programs. In my experience customer reference programs are a big help in fueling PR activities including interviews with editors, briefings with analysts, speaking engagements and customer roundtables. But so often I run into customer program managers who over-engineer their plans.

In this case, simplicity is the way to go. That’s why I’ve always been a fan of consultant, author and loyalty expert Fred Reichheld, the creator of the Net Promoter Score. His books, The Loyalty Effect, Loyalty Rules! and
The Ultimate Question all use one simple question when engaging customers: How likely is it that you would recommend this company to a friend or colleague?

Managing customer programs takes skill and guile since you must balance customer needs and time-restraints against the needs of your company to promote itself. For PR pros, it’s very important to have access to happy customers – those who definitely will recommend your company –  to serve as references for the press. For one thing, some journalists won’t accept vendor-hype at face value, insisting that there must be some relatively unbiased third-party to support the vendor’s claims.

But the question we’re facing today is…how has the rapid growth of social media impacted customer reference programs? In addition to traditional media activities, PR pros now have the complexity of working customers into social media programs.  Needless to say, this is not a simple endeavor, but the viral value of a positive customer mention in Twitter feed or blog posting could be considerable.  Building a community is tough, getting your customers to willingly spend valuable business hours contributing to these sites — on your behalf – is even tougher.

While this adds yet one more thing to the to-do list, there are some simple (remember KISS) things you can do to engage with customer on social media. For instance, you can set up a Twitter feed and make sure you follow all your customers on Twitter. Similarly, set up a Facebook presence and engage with customers. Or if you have a blog, invite the customer to provide a guest blog, or maybe you could post on your customer’s blog. The great thing about social media is not only is the customer carrying the message directly to potential prospects, you’re also deepening a relationship that couple be useful when the Wall Street Journal calls asking for a reference.

Customers references are so critical to growing a company.  What are some ways have you tried to get your customers actively engaged in online customer communities?

Brand name, brand experience, brand awareness, brand recognition, brand image, brand franchise, and brand identity…just to name a few. Thanks Wikipedia. Here’s the definition of brand that I like:

The word brand has continued to evolve to encompass identity – in effect the personality of a product, company or service.

Is there a more misunderstood or overused term in marketing than “brand?” I hear the term in planning sessions and see it all over the news, but how can something that is intangible cause such a stir in the corporate world?

In a recent CNET article about the world’s strongest brands, the top tech companies recognized included industry heavyweights Google, IBM and Apple. In fact, Google was the winner for the fourth straight year. Sort of funny when you think about it since IBM and Apple have actual products you can touch whereas Google is really just an online tool, albeit one that has effectively taken over the Web.

Here is the top 10 ranking of global brands in 2010 by research firm Millward Brown Optimor in its fifth annual “BrandZ Top 100 report“.

So as we talk about building brand, really, what does brand mean to you? To me Kleenex is a brand—do you ask someone for a tissue or a Kleenex when you’re about to sneeze? The name has effectively taken the place of the product line. I always have considered Sony a strong brand because it stands for quality products. I used to feel that way about Toyota but that’s another story.

A common attribute of brand in advertising that I see is the ability to identify with the product and want to emulate it on some level, like the Michael Jordan commercials with Gatorade (“Be like Mike”) or the Air Jordan shoes.

So in today’s day and age why is brand so important?

Because it’s all about building trust and strengthening brand loyalty. With so many choices available to consumers and companies, as well as so many mediums (radio, TV, social media, etc.) to reach target customers, companies are striving to keep their customers. It’s common knowledge that it costs less to maintain a customer relationship than to secure a new customer.

My feeling is that we’ve seen an uptick in the growth in usage of the term “brand” due to the rise of social media. Tools such as Facebook and MySpace not only give companies a way to reach their customers, but it creates a two-way dialogue that lets the customer engage with the company on an entirely different level. I’ve read about many smart companies that have added an element of customer service via Twitter. Sounds pretty smart to me.

So how can companies strive to instill more “personality” in their brand? What are some unique ways that companies are doing this?

More than six years ago, I answered a query in a chat room.  A woman in LA was looking for radio interviewers.  As a long-time news anchor, reporter and author-interviewer, I symbolically raised my hand.

And then.

I lowered it.

She was looking for podcasters.  I’d never done a podcast.

She asked, “Have you hosted and produced radio shows?”

“Probably hundreds of radio shows, all lengths,” I quickly answered.

“Then,” she said, “you’ve done hundreds of podcasts. You’re hired.”

Oh! So, that’s a podcast!

Since then, I’ve hosted and produced more than a hundred more podcasts for authors, high tech clients, MBA and Law School students, and others.  Podcasts are real, dynamic conversations that you can listen to anytime, anyplace.  The word stems from a blend of “broadcasting” and “iPods.”  Or, as Wired described it in a March 2005 article, “the bastard offspring of the blog and the Apple MP3 player.”

Podcast popularity is rising rapidly.  The respected Pew organization did a study in late 2008 on the habits of web users.  The Pew Internet and American Life Project found 19-percent of Internet users downloaded podcasts, and this is up from twelve-percent two years prior to that.

Other stats – men more likely than women to download, and under-fifty more likely than over-fifty.  But, again, that was two years ago.

The Pew 2008 study shows more than 43,000 podcasts were produced — more than double the 2006 figure, and that technology is the most popular sector.  More than 4,000 podcasts were available then.  Wonder how many now?  I know I’ve pumped in a bunch.

Searching for ever more current stats, I find eMarketer projecting the growth will continue at least for the next three years, when there will be 37.6 million people downloading podcasts on a monthly basis.  That’s double the 2008 figures.  No question the trend is up.

Thankfully, podcasting is more than grabbing a mic and some software.  Paul Verna, eMarketer senior analyst and author of the report, Podcasting Into the Mainstream says “Today, the vast majority of the top-rated podcasts come from recognizable media entities that are using podcasts to expand their existing radio, TV, cable, or satellite audiences.”

The thing about podcasts is that they’re so convenient. They’re especially effective for high technology.  Entertaining.  Informative. Like a conversation between business associates.  And you can listen in anywhere.

In my November 23^rd blog post, Dinosaurs Didn’t Adapt, But You Should, I talked about the impact that social media is having on local media news outlets, specifically metro newspapers. But what about local newspapers? If major metros, like the Rocky Mountain News, Cincinnati Post and Baltimore Examiner, had to shut their doors due to increased pressure from online media outlets, what are the odds of local, community newspapers surviving this threat to their existence?

Newstands gathering dust in San Francisco. A sign of our times.

As FierceContentManagement editor Ron Miller noted in his January 5^th column, Why local newspapers still matter (a lot), there is definitely an important place in the world for local newspapers. Large daily metros don’t have the resources available to cover all of the important news in anyone’s town. Personally, part of my morning ritual is to eat breakfast while reading the local paper. But while the threat of online news and social media continues to eat away at profits for local papers, how will they be able to survive as advertising revenue continues to decrease? Remember, it’s the ad revenue that covers the costs of running a newspaper, not the 25 cents that I pay each day.

Zacks Investment Research had this to say about the downward trend in advertising revenue for newspapers:

The slide in newspaper circulation, which ran through the 1990s and into 2000, is accelerating. Earlier, the circulation of newspaper was falling by less than 1%, but the rate of decline accelerated to 2% in 2005, 3% in 2007 and 4% in 2008 with more and more readers migrating to the Internet. Circulation has also fallen prey to budget cuts with newspaper companies reducing the number of print pages and newsroom staff to combat the downturn.

According to the data released by the Newspaper Association of America, newspaper-advertising revenue tumbled for the 13th straight quarter in the third quarter. Also, 2009 reflected the steepest fall in advertising sales since 1987.

• Total advertising revenue dropped 28% year-over-year to $6.4 billion in the third-quarter of 2009.
• In the first nine months, advertising revenue also declined 28% to $19.9 billion.
• Print advertising revenue plunged 29% to $5.8 billion, with classified advertising revenue down 38% to $1.46 billion.

Similarly, television and radio have been greatly impacted by the changes in media. According to a report written by Vocus Media Research Group (2010 State of the Media), the radio industry also felt the recession this year as revenues for radio stations dropped from the previous year, with estimates ranging from 15 to 20 percent and more than 10,000 jobs were lost. Television didn’t do much better as bankruptcies were common as more than 100 TV stations were affected by their parent companies filing Chapter 11.

So if major metros and even local newspapers are on the chopping block, what are local companies going to do to promote themselves? How can they take advantage of this situation?

In one sense the growth of social media and local online news outlets has provided local companies, such as restaurants and retail shops, with the opportunity to reach their target market like never before. Sure, local companies can advertise online in the local news outlet. But social media tools and local online news outlets give everyone a voice. In order to help build and promote brand awareness, local companies can write their own blog on their Web site, comment on and link to other interesting blogs, promote local events and share company news. This democratization of news is unprecedented in modern history.

While I want to see my local paper remain viable, I think that the rise of social media tools and local online news outlets has dramatically changed the way we absorb and view local news. I’d like to pose the question to small businesses—has the growth of social media and local online news outlets improved or weakened your business?

I’m not embarrassed to say that my wife and I seek out our children to help with installing new electronic devices. On the flip side, they both find it quite odd to hear me say “I didn’t have a PC/cell phone/digital camera when I was your age”. Our society has become so technology focused it’s a wonder we can even walk to the corner market and buy something without using technology – oh wait, they’ll scan my preferred club card and I will pay with my debit card – guess that example doesn’t work.

There are many great technologies available today that help our world. Whether it’s a new medical device to help regulate diabetes, e-mail so that I can stay in touch with my son’s teacher, or a photo-sharing Web site that allows me to post old photos with high school friends, technology seemingly has invaded all aspects of our life. But now it’s even crept into the holidays.

I’m a big fan of social media. I’ve reconnected with many old friends and colleagues via Facebook and Twitter. But now I think we may have gone too far by shattering the innocence of little kids around Christmas time. For years people have been able to track Santa’s sleigh on Christmas Eve thanks to our friends at NORAD. Well, now you can also link in and stalk Santa via Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google Earth and Flickr. But this one takes the cake.

A partnership with navigation company OnStar and NORAD allows subscribers to get live Santa updates on their in-car GPS system. So I can grab my kids, put them in the car, and drive around as we track Santa’s whereabouts. I wonder if Mrs. Claus tracks him throughout the rest of the year, not that Santa Claus has ever been accused of being unfaithful but it makes you wonder that he can slip into so many houses unnoticed.

So what’s the point of this little missive? When does a company’s brand get tarnished by going overboard? More social/political, when do you reconsider your feelings for a company when something goes wrong? Do you think any less of OnStar for this blatant abuse of holiday traditions? Will you stay away from Nike or Gillette due to Tiger Woods’ recent bumper car fiasco? On a much grander scale, would you shy away from purchasing a product or doing business with a company in a foreign country that you do not support? Building brand reputation takes a lot of time and effort but can all of that goodwill be thrown out the door with one simple misstep?

Say what you want about social media, but I firmly believe that it’s here to stay and it’s changing the way the world works. And it’s not even social media. Why bother waiting for the morning newspaper to learn about world events or national politics when I can go onto www.cnn.com of www.foxnews.com (always fair and balanced) and find out everything I need to know whenever I want? What kind of an impact is social media having on our conventional news outlets? Try these on for size…

Question: What do the following have in common?

• Tucson Citizen
• Rocky Mountain News
• Baltimore Examiner
• Cincinnati Post
• Albuquerque Tribune

Answer: They are all daily newspapers that have closed since 2007.

Question: What do the following have in common?

• Seattle Post-Intelligencer
• Detroit News/Detroit Free Press
• Christian Science Monitor
• Ann Arbor News

Answer: They are print dailies that have adopted hybrid online/print or online-only models.

I’m sure there are other major metro daily papers teetering on the brink, but as sad as that may be, what does it say about the changing landscape of the media? The bigger question I have is…could we be approaching a world where everyone gets their news online or on TV in real-time?

While I read many publications, both online and in actual print, the thought of losing my local newspaper does cause me concern. More habit than anything else, part of my morning ritual is to read the paper while I’m having breakfast. I know many people spend a good part of the Sunday mornings reading their local paper or doing the New York Times crossword puzzle. But to be honest I mostly skim the headlines since I’ve almost always gotten my news the day before online. In our 24 hour news cycle world, our insatiable appetite to be “in the know” means having all the news updated in real-time.

So while the potential death of local newspapers is truly a concern, the good news is that the online news world and social media continue to dominate our daily lives. You want proof? Check these out:

• The rise of Twitter has been the talk of the tech and media world. Last year, it grew 422%. That’s staggering, but nothing compared to the 1,382% growth it experienced earlier this year. (Mashable)
• More than 8 billion minutes are spent on Facebook each day (worldwide) and there are more than 45 million status updates each day.
• Did LinkedIn more than double its U.S. visitors in October? A casual glance at the latest comScore data makes it look that way, with LinkedIn shooting up to 20 million unique visitors in October, 2009, from 9 million in September, 2009. (TechCrunch)

The moral of this story? Take hold of the future while not forgetting the past. Print isn’t dead yet, it’s just got a nasty case of the flu.

So what do you think? Is social media a passing fad that will simply fade out over time or is it here to stay?