Public Relations

Social Media – The Dawning of a New ‘New Age’?

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, External Communications, Public Relations, Social Media and tagged , , , , , , .

Got into a bit of a debate recently, as avid followers of this, the blog that not-very-many people read, will know. It was all about the possibly fatal, and definitely barking, madness of letting the general population of employees of a company post to social media sites in an unregulated and unmonitored stylee. To summarise, I’m against it, some people are for it. Apparently, Ford and Coke (well, their social media marketing types) are for it.

Anyway, the debate shifted slightly and became more about trusting your employees to be brand ambassadors and being less controlling of how they do it. Apparently, as long as your people are honest, at least slightly personable and proud of what they do, then other people – your audiences – will know. And if the company is made up of people like this, then they will know. And it will be the sort of company that they want to deal with. This put me in mind of something else I read recently, which said (I’m paraphrasing) that in future consumers (public, audiences) will not have a contract or relationship with the company or the brand – instead they will have it with the company or brand’s employees.

Is it just me, or is this hopelessly Utopian? Am I getting a whiff of hessian and patchouli here? Are people actually trying to tell me that if we’re all nice to one another, then we’ll all be happier and more successful? Am I being told – in point of fact – to ‘give peace a chance’?

It’s worrying. Am I too close to the whole social media debate, and thus seeing nuances and blowing them out of proportion or, in fact, are we seeing the dawn of a new ‘New Age’ created by social media and the fact that people, all over the world, are happily and politely interacting with complete strangers.

And because, in the main, their interaction with complete strangers is good, and informative and polite and safe, they’re lulled into thinking that a) this good, informative, polite safety extends into other walks of life (it doesn’t – West Ham v Milwall anyone?) and b) if there was more of it, and if people embraced it, then life would be better and all our problems would go away.

The rise of the cyber-hippy?

You know what John Lydon said – never trust a hippy.

Internal Communications – Here Be Debate!

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, Internal Communications, Internal Communications and Engagement, Public Relations, Social Media and tagged , , , , , , , .

This is a follow-up to the post in which I suggested that it would be an act of near-criminal lunacy to advocate (like Ford and Coke seem to be doing) giving employees of large organisations the freedom to post to social media sites, without any corporate control. (I’m paraphrasing.) Anyway, here’s another reply:

“Yes, employees need to be briefed. And the article you quote (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124925830240300343.html) states that they will be trained! So I don’t see the idea of letting trained, briefed, hand-picked employees interact with customers on the company’s behalf as a dangerous one.

 Can you imagine someone trying to Tweet on behalf of the company, answering customer service complaints/queries, etc. and having to go to PR for approval of every tweet? No – you pick the right person to tweet and train them so they understand the limits of what they can say and when to get help from PR/Legal, if things get nasty or something big happens. You’re talking about responding to a lot of “I like coke better than pepsi” “why does BK serve Pepsi and not Coke” types of tweets.

 Also, the Domino’s example is one where employees weren’t tweeting or videoing on behalf of the company. Running all official Dominos Tweets and posts through PR wouldn’t have stopped it. And certainly, this was a crisis situation and professionals handled it – I don’t think Dominos let just anyone respond on the company’s behalf.

 I see the Domino’s case as an example of how easy it is for what’s happening internally (especially the bad stuff) to go public, rather than a reason to try and stop employees from talking about work. And I don’t believe it’s possible for a company nowadays to maintain 100% control of messages that go public.

 One of my favorite reads is the Authentic Enterprise report by the A W Page Society: http://www.awpagesociety.com/images/uploads/AE_Summary_4.pdf

Talks about how the walls are dissolving and what a company says externally has to match the way they really are internally – authenticity is key to success. This means trusting employees and moving away from pure command and control.

 Last thought: social media is conversational and personal. An individual needs to post – imagine if a company ran an ‘official’ Twitter stream with no person’s name, only press releases and ‘we’re so great’ messages. It would be a flop and would turn people off. The companies seeing a positive response to their efforts are those who let the customer service rep/pr person/exec be themselves and talk about the company (within a set of guidelines).

 My twenty cents!”

Great reply – and worth responding. 

The WSJ article actually says ‘some companies are training staffers to broaden their social media efforts’ – this is journalese for ‘I’m about to introduce two examples of companies that have told me they’re going to start letting their employees post to social media’. The companies themselves – Ford and Coke – talk more in terms of ‘teaching employees how to use sites’ and ‘authorizing’ employees to post without recourse to the company’s PR staff. This does not automatically imply training programmes for nominated Tweeters and posters – and in any case, when you’re messing with a company’s reputation, even if someone has been trained, you still monitor what they do very closely. Hence briefing documents, position statements and Q&A documents every time a senior executive speaks to the media (common practice in the majority of listed companies).

The whole Customer service scenario described is, I believe, discrete from the plans of Ford and Coke. Customer Service staff normally have sheets of pre-prepared responses which they use (reactively) to answer general complaints and queries and they never stray from the script. If I’ve read the WSJ article correctly, what they’re talking about is allowing staff to be active in their use of social media – not responding to general enquiries, but posting their thoughts, opinions and commentary. This is very different, fraught with danger and would require a whole different type of training/preparation. It could be argued that one cannot train someone to post to social media – you’re talking about delicacy, sensitivity, social awareness etc etc – arguably stuff that you cannot teach.

 As for the Dominos example – the only way to have stopped that happening would have been to have had a policy in place which says Dominos franchisees and their employees do not post Dominos-related material on social media. Any franchisee or employee found in breach of the policy will be fired. Simple and – once you make a couple of examples, pour encourager les autres – highly effective. You’re right, it’s impossible for a company to be 100% in control of the message – but there are ways that the company can get close to it.

I totally agree that the external perception of the company has to reflect the internal reality – but giving employees freedom to post to social media is not the way to achieve this. A good internal comms programme – enrolling employees in the corporate goals and ethos and allowing them to understand why the messages are controlled, what the potential issues are and what the effects could be – is.

I’m afraid that trusting employees to do the right thing is a beautiful idea, but in the real world it cannot work – not because they are inherently untrustworthy, but because they are human and therefore fallible. Even letting them operate ‘within a set of guidelines’ doesn’t work – guidelines are open to interpretation and – therefore – misinterpretation.

I read somewhere recently that in today’s web-based society, a consumers’ relationship is no longer with the company or its brand, but with the company’s employees. I fundamentally disagree with this. The role of a company and its brands is to make money – for its owners, shareholders and employees and, through them, for the country/countries in which it is based. This is capitalism, this is the way of the world – let’s not get it confused with the new New Age that seems to be arising from the social media phenomenon.

Internal Communications – Freedom of Speech? You Cannot Be Serious – Part 2

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, External Communications, Internal Communications, Public Relations, Social Media and tagged , , , , , , , .

In a recent post, I suggested that allowing employees to post to social networking sites without checking what they’re posting first (which is, pretty much, what Ford and Coke are planning to do) was just on the howling-at-the-moon side of psychotic insanity. For the record, I blame the inappropriate and unmerited levels of influence ascribed to the rash of self-styled ‘social media strategists’ that are oozing out of the woodwork wherever you look these days.

I got a response. Here it is:

“I completely agree! That’s why it’s so important to make sure your employees are all always well-briefed. That goes for every single employee throughout the company. John C. Havens and Shel Holtz give several good examples of the importance of internal transperancy in their book, Tactical Transperancy.

Good, up-to-the-minute internal communications will make sure your employees are always on-message and well-briefed. Asking them to recommend the brand to friends in person is no different than asking them to do so online, except that online their voices can be heard by a lot more people.

Your point is well-made for employers that urge their employees to go out into cyberspace (and the real world) and promote the brand. That’s why a good social media strategy includes a strategy for keeping the employees well-briefed and well-aware of the message.”

Ah – would that it were so easy.

 ‘Internal transparency’ (in one meaning of the term) shouldn’t exist. There is no argument whatsoever for ensuring that everyone knows everything. In fact, it would be dangerous – it’s not that you cannot trust your employees with the information, it’s that you cannot trust their interpretation of the information.

 No matter how good and up-to-the-minute your internal comms is, unless you undertake to brief each employee individually, on a one-to-one basis, then you cannot guarantee understanding and a correct interpretation of the data. Which is why all internal comms messages need to be broad-brush and unambiguous – there is no room for subtlety in internal comms. Because of this, good internal comms does not give you the control you need to allow your people to go off on their own.

 I would never ask an employee to recommend the brand or organisation to their friends – it seems needy and might, in fact, turn that employee against me. I want to capture the hearts and minds of the employee (through broad-brush, unambiguous internal comms) and then I want them to talk to their friends, in their own words, of their own accord, with the unambiguity that I have provided for them. And talking to their friends is very different to them posting online PRECISELY because it can be seen/heard by so many more people.

 I wouldn’t ask my employees to post about my brand or organisation on social networking sites – and if they decided to do so, I would want to see every post before it was posted. There may be a strategy for keeping employees well-briefed (isn’t that simply another reference to our internal comms programme?) but it will – I’m afraid – have the same lack of subtlety that I’ve just mentioned. The added issue with social media is that it’s not just your employees that may misinterpret the message – their misinterpretation will then be freely misinterpreted by an audience that you cannot track or measure.

 It still seems like a recipe for disaster to me.

Public Relations – Worthy of the Term ‘Profession’?

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, Public Relations and tagged , , , , , , , , .

Sorry. I’ve been reading PR Week again.

I know I shouldn’t, and there’s nothing to be gained, and that if I continue to do it, I’ll end up as a bearded, wild-eyed, string-shoelaced, shambling apparition, destined to ride on the Circle Line forever, muttering ‘buggrit, buggrem, I told ’em it weren’t right, ‘advertising value equivalent’, they says to me, buggrit, what, says I, I do, it means nothing, shrimp and spanners, buggrem’.

Probably.

Anyway, PR Week. It makes me cross. Sometimes it makes me REALLY cross. It is distinctly possible that I shouldn’t take it so seriously. It is even possible that the magazine is staffed by a bunch of post-modern ironists who are so clever, so sharp, that what, on the surface, can appear inane drivel is, in fact, the most telling commentary and satire, but so finely-honed that its real message is hidden from all but an enlightened few. Right.

This week, the thing that’s made me cross is one of the biggest issues facing our industry. I’m assuming I’m right in saying this because it’s certainly something that better minds that mine have been discussing since I first sat in a chair and made a weak attempt at trying to interest a journalist in the ‘news’ of a revolutionary hair removal system. (Don’t ask.)

It’s the issue of why isn’t PR taken seriously? Why doesn’t PR have (very often) a seat at the top table? Why, when PR is described as a ‘profession’ is there always an echoing of sniggering in the background? (Even when there’s no-one there.) Why is PR described as ‘lightweight’ and ‘fluffy’ – and why do people believe that it is? Why is PR not seen as a ‘proper job’? Why is it, at worst, ignored and at best, barely tolerated?

(And before anyone starts, you know this is, in the main, true. Yes, there are some organisations where PR is given the respect it should command – but they are few and far between.)

There are many possible answers – and maybe I’ll come back to them. Today, let’s concentrate on one of the biggest culprits – in fact a load of the biggest culprits – us – the industry itself. How is anyone going to take PR seriously if we persist in perpetuating the myths and prancing around like a bunch of knobs.

Yes, we don’t all do it. In fact, I’d imagine, very few of us do it. But. But. And this is why PR Week makes me cross this week. You see, according to the rules of communication, it only takes one incident to ruin the reputation of the industry. Especially if that incident is kindly emblazoned in the pages of what purports to be the voice of the industry. So, this week, step foward Deborah Clark Associates ‘celebrating the launch of the ‘Cornwall Twestival” – what were you thinking of?

I’m not going to link to the picture here. Suffice it say it smacks of ill-conceived sixth-form amateur dramatics. It was lightweight AND it was fluffy. But, ignoring for the moment the obvious question of what possessed these people to do this in the first place, the other obvious question is what in the name of all that’s holy were PR Week thinking of when they decided to print it?

It’s tough times for PR. We all know that. But with friends like PR Week, who needs enemies?

Internal Communications: Freedom of Speech? You Cannot be Serious.

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, External Communications, Internal Communications, Public Relations, Social Media and tagged , , , , , , , , , , .

Now, please tell me what is wrong with the quotation below. (And I’m not talking about spelling or syntax, smartarses, I’m talking about content).

“Some companies are training staffers to broaden their social-media efforts. At Ford, Mr. Monty plans to soon begin teaching employees how to use sites like Twitter to represent the company and interact with consumers.

 Coca-Cola Co. is preparing a similar effort, which initially will be limited to marketing, public affairs and legal staffers. Participants will be authorized to post to social media on Coke’s behalf without checking with the company’s PR staff, says Adam Brown, named Coke’s first head of social media in March.”

This is from the Wall Street Journal – an article already mentioned on this blog – which witters on about how companies are using social media (specifically Twitter) to do something. I’m not sure what. On the face of it – to waste time, resource and budget. But hey! Maybe it’s just me.

But that’s not what this is about. (For once.) No, this is about the wisdom of letting your employees have free and uncontrolled access to the media which, in effect, is what the good people at Ford and Coke are thinking of doing.

Are they completely insane? As we all know, your people are your greatest asset and your greatest liability. As ambassadors for your brand and product, there is nothing more powerful than a vociferous and loyal employee – and here’s the important bit – that has been well-briefed and is on-message.

This is why internal communications departments exist – to generate that loyalty, to bring the workforce on-board, to maintain motivation and momentum – to ensure the messages that are going out are consistent and in line with company strategy and policy. This is why internal comms works hand-in-glove with external comms – and why all messages go past the external comms (PR) department – because anything said by anyone about your brand or business can impact on reputation. And it’s your reputation that you trade on.

In no company or organisation that I know do employees get to comment publicly, to an external audience (and I’m not talking mates down the pub, here) without being carefully briefed and monitored. In fact, in many companies and organisations, it is more than their jobs are worth for them to do so. Why? Because not everyone is as sensitive to the message and to reputation as those employed as guardians of reputation and, time and time again, through simple error of judgement, or naivety, or malicious intent, employees’ comments and actions in a public arena bring a company into disrepute. And then you have a crisis, and then you have some shit to shovel.

Example? Dominos Pizza (apologies, because I’ve used this example before, but – damn – it’s a good one) and the posting, on YouTube of video footage of unhygienic practices, in a Dominos franchise, by employees.

You simply do not allow employees free rein. You don’t. It is accepted.

Then along come the social media strategists. “It’s all about content, it’s all about dialogue, it’s all about the quality of the conversation” – free spirits in the digital age. Not for them the rules of the old guard – no, the rise of the internet and FaceBook and Twitter has changed the world and we must move on or wither and die.

It appears that their lobbying – and the continuing spread of Shiny Object Syndrome – has convinced even the most conservative of organisations (Coke, anyone?) that they should be allowed to let employees post directly to the social media sites, without passing the sense/health check that is the PR department.

I know – if anyone ever reads this (hello?) – that I’ll be accused, as a PR professional, of being miffed that I’ve been edged out of the frame and that stuff is going on without me.

Maybe. But I think this is a disaster waiting to happen. Time will tell. Personally I hope there’s someone in both organisations (Ford and Coke) who remembers what the real role of a corporate communicator is, and is powerful enough to perform it.

The real role of a corporate communicator is to look at stuff like this and say ‘no fucking way’. And put a stop to the stupidity immediately.

Social media: Preposterous before…er…Posterous came along?

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, External Communications, Marketing, Public Relations, Social Media and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , .

Apparently sane person is asked what they consider to be the ‘next big thing’ in social media. (Actually, scratch that ‘apparently sane’ bit – anyone who’s in a position to be asked what they consider to be the blah blah blah is obviously several tweets short of the full nest.) And this person named three potentials – Foursquare, Brightkite and Posterous and another one the name of which I simply couldn’t be arsed to remember which wasn’t, after all, a ‘social medium’ in the true sense, more a CMS. Which, therefore, doesn’t really make it eligible to be the new Twitter. Even I know that.

Anyway, given that I’ve already had a look at Brightkite some time ago and felt that it really had very little to offer (well, it didn’t, go and look for yourself), I thus had two to choose from and I chose Posterous.

Now. If something had been touted to you as the next big thing in social media, you’d expect it to be a bit special, wouldn’t you? Wouldn’t you? Or is it just me? Yes, of course you would. Well, here it is:

http://posterous.com/

And no, don’t bother, because it isn’t.

Maybe it is me. Maybe I’m missing something. I read another post this morning about the wonderful world and uses of Twitter and how big companies like Dell and Pepsi and Coke…………………hold on a cotton-picking moment. Aren’t they the same three companies that are ALWAYS mentioned whenever someone wants to demonstrate how social media has been used to corporate advantage? Are there no other examples?

I can only draw one conclusion. And it’s the same one. Social media and social media marketing are another minor royal with no clothes on. Not even an Emperor, more a Duke of somewhere not-terribly-important. Posterous – and the acqusition of Friendfeed by Facebook are nothing more than the desperate attempts of those who are making a living from the chimaera to string that living out for a little longer.

Tell me I’m wrong.

Social Media – A Tweet in Time….er….

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, Crisis Management, External Communications, Marketing, Public Relations, Social Media and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Some more happy horsedroppings, this time from that venerable organ, the WSJ. Read it here.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124925830240300343.html

On first glance this all seems fine – big names – Ford, Pepsi, Coke etc etc etc – all got a social media presence, all got social media teams, must be important.

Then delve down a bit.

So Ford found that people were complaining about the shutting down of a website. C’mon guys. So what. Is this actually going to affect sales of your cars (because that’s what, as an auto manufacturer, you’re all about and don’t you forget it). No, it’s not. Therefore, all the time that your people spent ‘rectifying the situation’ was, in fact, time wasted.

So Coke found that some guy with 10,000 followers was having difficulty reclaiming a promotion. They fixed it for him. He chaged his avatar to a picture of him with a bottle of Coke. Hot-diggety-dog-dump and a big fat whoop-de-do. Did it sell more Coke? Probably not. Did it impact on this guy’s 10,000 followers? Probably not. Why? because most of those followers don’t actually exist or, if they do, aren’t active. See the link below:

http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/08/13/firm-reports-twitter-is-40-useless-babble-were-0-surprised?icid=sphere_wpcom_inline

So, Coke, all that time your people spent sorting it out? Wasted.  In fact, the WSJ article is just plain wrong, on many, many different levels. Not least of which is that it reveals that these companies have such desperate cases of Shiny Object Syndrome that they are lashing undoubtedly obscene amounts of money on the salaries and benefits packages of entire teams of ‘social media strategists’.

C’mon. Facebook and Twitter (there’s another thing wrong with this article – gives it the lie in fact – these are the only two social media mentioned) are passing fads. There’s no burgeoning new comms/marketing world being signalled by social media/online social networking. It’s a chimaera. It doesn’t exist – and neither, therefore, does ‘social media strategy’ or, indeed, ‘social media strategists’. Waste of money and several perfectly good workstations.

As an aside, I saw that Dominos Pizza were speaking at a conference recently – one of those that hapless comms and marketing people like us pay oodles of cash to go to on the off-chance we might learn something. And they were there to talk about the issues around employees posting uncontrolled video footage on YouTube and other social media. Talk about shutting the door after the horse had buggered off – and what did anyone think they were going to learn from Dominos, anyway. I was amazed.

Finally for today, may I express my dismay that the digital/social media strategists employed, at great cost, by Coke, appear to have managed to get permission for a group of people to post to social media sites (probably FaceBook and Twitter – as the only ones that anyone really knows) without going through the PR department. Someone could do with talking to Dominos, now I think about it.

I love the smell of impending disaster in the morning, it smells of – hmmm – Meat Feast?  Or is it random brown sugary liquid? I’m not sure………..

Social Media – Another Case of ‘Shiny Object Syndrome’

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, Evaluation, External Communications, Marketing, Public Relations, Social Media and tagged , , , , , , .

Oooh, ooh! Look! It’s new! It’s exciting! I’ve got to have one! What if everyone else has one and I don’t?

Yes, it’s Shiny Object Syndrome again. Further proof that the communications/marketing world is in danger of drowning – despite the stuff it’s drowning in being so incredibly, indescribably shallow.

Today, gentle communicatorists, the Shiny Object of our Syndrome is apps. iPhone Apps in particular, but please take it to mean any app that can be downloaded or installed on your device of choice.

There I was, ghosting around the net (I think that’s a splendid term and perfectly describes the squillions of people, moving around the netosphere at any one time, leaving no trace save for a record of their IP address and clickety proclivities – both bits of information that are of no use at all to the ‘social media marketer’), and I found someone pleading for an answer to the question:

“How are you using iPhone Apps in your marketing and PR plans?”

Virals, anyone? (ie a useless waste of money that achieves little cut through and no tangible ROI.) Luckily, in amongst the ‘social media marketing experts’, who were gushing about how the design and production of bespoke branded iPhone Apps  represents the future of marketing and communications (or, at least, will keep them employed when Twitter and FaceBook inevitably turn to dust in their hands), there were one or two brave souls who simply said ‘what’s the point?’ Just another fad in the making and one that our experience should tell us is likely to be simply an expensive chimaera.

As ideas go – well, you cannot polish a turd. Seemingly, however, you CAN roll it in glitter.

Oh – and virals. As if further proof were needed of what an incredible waste of time, effort, technology and budget they are, have a look at this:

http://newteevee.com/2009/08/11/the-megawoosh-waterslide-viral-how-it-was-really-done/

Great film. Turns out it’s a ‘carefully crafted viral ad for Microsoft’s Office suite’. So carefully crafted, in fact, that the result is promotionally homeopathic. The brand message has been diluted so much that it is no longer there.

How can anyone see any value in this? Or is it that the executives who commissioned it have a particularly bad case of SOS?

Over-Confidence or The Dawn of a New Era?

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, Crisis Management, External Communications, Public Relations and tagged , , .

I’m really not clever enough for this, but here we go anyway:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/aug/10/peter-mandelson-interview-decca-aitkenhead

Massive mistake? Brilliant piece of rehab PR? Signal to the country (or those who think about it, anyway) that there’s a new prime minister in town?  Advance warning to the lefty faithful?

What was this all about? Mr Mandelson comes across as a pantomime villain (or pantomime dame). The references to his ‘aides’ and the notes and glances passed between them could be directly from an airport novel, or an American drama (series 2, episode 12). What were they/he/who thinking on this one?

Peter Mandelson is running the country, people. Unelected, unlooked-for and unasked-for. He is the most powerful man in the country, and – as far as I can see, to show us all how easy it’s been and how established his powerbase is – he gives an interview in which he comes across as camper than the Childcatcher outta Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. It’s Paul O’Grady, but more sinister.

And the real worry about all of this? The fact that a ‘serious’ paper like Teh Grauniad publishes speculation that Pete might end up as Prime Minister. He’s a spin doctor, for God’s sake. He’s one of us. He’s a communications practitioner.

Actually, that’s not the real worry. The real worry, for me anyway, is that I’ve spent my career believing that things would be run better if comms practitioners were at the top table – and possibly, maybe, in charge. Now, it appears that a comms practitioner might achieve that goal – and might, actually, be in charge.

And guess what – I think it might be a good thing – but as I said at the beginning – I’m not really clever enough for this.

Social Media – A New Dotcom Bubble, As If Proof Were Needed

Posted on by in Communications Strategy, External Communications, Marketing, Public Relations, Social Media and tagged , , , , , , , .

ITV sell Friends Reunited for £145m less than they paid for it. DC Thomson buy it, announce that they plan to make a dating site for the over-50s out of it.

As a service for the hard-of-thinking, in simple terms, this is what it means. ITV paid over £150m for Friends Reunited because they thought they could ‘monetise’ it (to press a curennt buzzword into service). They couldn’t. DC Thomson, being slightly smarter AND with the benefit of some years extra intel, realise that they’ll not be able to sell it as a marketing/advertising opportunity, so look at the ways they can make money from the users of the site. Who happen to be over 50 and – let’s face it – looking for something.

This – and eBay’s experience with Skype (OK, not technically a social network, but reliant on users parting with cash to communicate with each other) – really underlines where we are with social media as a marketing tool. Nowhere. Marketing activity through social media delivers no tangible value – certainly nothing that translates into noticeable uplift in revenues. The ITV/Friends Reunited debacle just shows how futile it is to try and ‘monetise’ – get a sensible, serious and stable revenue stream out of – a social medium.

It is an object lesson. Do not do it.

Oh, I hear you say, but I have no intention of buying placebebo.com and trying to monetise it. No, my social media marketing strategies involve using existing social media channels, and require no investment from me.

Wrong. Every hour you, or your people, spend monitoring Twitter or creating groups on Facebook is time, effort and opportunity cost that would be better dedicated elsewhere.

(Oh, yeah – Twitter – becoming the province of the middle-aged and older. Young people moving away, new research says so. Google it.)