DISQUS

Thanks for including Max Gladwell and doing it on an #EcoMonday! Lots of familiar avatars in there. The Green Force on Twitter is strong.

workingman: now that you mention it, the libertarians are ideally positioned to usurp the republicans as the opposition party to the democrats. ron paul made some great progress, but he's just not a viable candidate. and his platform needs a lot of work to make it palatable to a majority. and social media will clearly be the way.

This post inspired the #ecomonday meme, which has taken off. Thanks Brian!

We certainly need to call out greenwashing and "causewashing" when we see it. But we also can't send the message to companies that if you want to contribute and become a part of the solution, you better do it right, or else we'll crush you.

If we make it too risky for companies to take action and try to make a difference, they just won't. So you'll have a lot of well-intentioned people at the low and mid-level of a company lobbying for the benefits of a cause marketing program that can make a difference while building brand equity or achieving some other business objective. But the higher-ups might see how their other companies got crushed just for trying and say no. Then nothing happens.

<abbr>Max Gladwell´s last blog post..The New Media Landscape: Mass Profesionalization</abbr>

Great post. Thanks for the shout out. You should also check out http://www.KivaB4B.org and the branded credit card. It doubles your loaning power through Kiva.org, and every new card holder means a $25 donation to Kiva.org.

<abbr>Max Gladwell´s last blog post..The New Media Landscape: Mass Profesionalization</abbr>

Framing the climate change/global warming debate as a fundamental health issue that affects all of us and future generations is the only way we'll get consensus on taking the necessary action. Polar bears and sea levels rising and forests are not palpable enough for most people.

Pretty extensive list. There are a few that should have been excluded. Ecocho and Ripple are pretty weak. Seems like Kiva was the biggest omission under charitable giving. We'd also recommend looking at http://www.ecoperks.com, a green rewards program.

Thanks for the mention. Will be posting more about our branding strategy in the near future.

We responded with Discovery Marketing: http://www.maxgladwell.com/2008/09/discovery-ma...

Our social media best practice is the fundamental of making your brand more discoverable. It's integral to our "beacon approach" philosophy.

I'm not a partisan and take no pride in these predictions. I look at this election as any objective observer would. You're pinning your predictions on hope. I'm making mine based on historical consistencies. It's not a partisan thing. It's the facts as they are.

I don't buy into the GOP boogyman that liberals see as why the Dems lost in 2004. Kerry was a bad candidate, and it takes a far superior candidate to unseat an incumbent...or and economic crisis. Neither was the case.

And I'm not even saying that the economic crisis was the GOP's fault. That's another discussion. I'm simply pointing out that incumbents always lose when there's an economic crisis. It's a rule. The Dems know it. The GOP knows it. But no one will talk about it. The only manifestation I've seen is Palin. If the GOP thought they'd win, they'd have picked a better candidate, woman or man.

The only question is how bad the defeat will be. I'm leaning toward a landslide where the Dems take states they haven't had in decades, especially once the candidates have had a chance to debate.

But I do find it ironic that evangelicals were literally praying for it to rain on Obama's acceptance speech and then a hurricane ends up delaying the RNC. If there's a God, I don't think you can confuse His message. Unless He put the wrong date on his calendar.

The GOP is looking to 2012, as are the candidates who may run. Hillary is even looking to 2012. These things are in motion. Most in the GOP see the writing on the wall. The question on everyone's minds is how to take back the White House in 2012. You won't see any of that b/c it has to play out like they think they can win in Nov. No one wants to be seen as giving up. But politics is a long-term game. The goal now is to minimize the damage done by Bush-Cheney and run as best they can in Nov w/o having to sacrifice anyone who can help in 2012.

Mondale-Ferraro fought very hard, too. So did Dole in '96. It will certainly appear that they are fighting. They have to go thru the motions, and no one...not even the media...will admit or even float the idea that McCain-Palin are predestined to be road kill in the annals of American political history. This is precisely why you don't have a more qualified VP candidate. Palin doesn't mind losing b/c she's raising her national profile. The qualified GOP women and most GOP men wouldn't touch it b/c they don't need the brutal loss that the American people will deliver to the GOP come November.

And while this has something to do with the candidates, it's more of an historical truth. Every time there's an election during an economic crisis, the incumbent party loses. Hoover, Carter, Bush 41, and now Bush 43/McCain. This political truth plays no partisan favorites. Economics is brutal that way.

Palin is a sacrificial lamb just as Ferraro was in '84. Sad but true. There are many more highly qualified GOP women who would have accomplished all of those same objectives w/o the inexperience and baggage. The GOP has given up. They are looking to 2012 and saving their best women for then. For deeper analysis, see http://www.maxgladwell.com/2008/09/indecision-2...

Another way bloggers can unite for change and support finding a cure for cancer: http://www.maxgladwell.com/2008/08/socialvibe-r...

OK, I'll play contrarian. It's easy to say everything is subjective and relative. But is anything universally good on the social web? I mean, we're not talking about Luddites who don't do email. These are people on the social web already. You can't compare a social media devotee who likes Plurk over Twitter to someone who thinks blogs are useless. These are two different types of people.

When it comes to social media types, we can easily disagree about Plurk vs. Twitter and Facebook vs. MySpace. But a few of the platforms and tools just nail it in an objective sense. RSS is beautiful. What's the alternative? What's not to like? And StumbleUpon is one of a kind.

To each their own and live and let live, for sure. But it's possible that social media truths exist beyond our whimsical opinions.

James/CaseyP: It's certainly not one or the other. Look at http://www.pickensplan.com. Unlimited budget. Tons of TV ads and PR. Scroll to the bottom of the page and see all of the social media links. And he's not actually selling anything. No consumer product. It's new brand, if you will, launched on July 8th. Heavily focused on public policy, actually, so they're taking a page from Obama. It translates into any type of marketing. With limited budgets, social media makes sense in terms of ROI.

With bigger budgets, that just means you can get more creative and guide customers from TV, print, outdoor, and radio to social media in order to engender the two-way conversation and viral spread of the message. It's an accelerator for traditional/email marketing, as well as an end of its own. You're only limited by your ability to think up new ways to mash up old and new media and leverage the most from them.

James: Your point is well taken about how the tech world often mistakes itself for the whole world. It's akin to believing that the sun revolves around the earth. That became all too clear in Calacanis' claim that blogging was dead.

But social media marketing tactics, as Chris outlines in this starter kit, can be utilized and replicated in pretty much any industry, regardless of whether you're an established brand or startup. There are exceptions, but by and large your customers are on the web. A vast majority are also on the social web. It's just a matter of (a) making yourself findable (discoverable) and (b) going about finding them. Chris glances over the blog tactic in the intro, but we feel it's absolutely essential. Start a good blog should be first. Then do all of these other things to promote it.

In "Can a Blog Lead Your Business Strategy?" (http://www.maxgladwell.com/2008/07/can-a-blog-l...), we look at this as the hub of any brand building or social media strategy. Whether you're a clothing designer or local bakery, a blog can be the primary source of your brand signal. So all of these other tactics revolve around your blog. I'd argue the resources that you'll put into a blog will earn far better returns than any type of online ad, SEO or spam campaign. It's sustainable.

Example: Here's a company that sells eco-friendly mattresses (http://keetsa.com/blog). Hardly a tech company. And yet their blog is one of their primary means of traffic, customer acquisition, and branding. Note their dedication and blog frequency and topic range. This could stand on its own as a green blog. And what are the costs? These people are clearly experts in their field, so they're just sharing knowledge and experience.

Anyone can do this. It's sincere. It's authentic. It's cost effective. And it works. Plus, as an authentic blogger, you transcend PR in the eyes of other bloggers in your space and open yourself up to coverage that you don't even have to ask for. Because you are making a valuable contribution to the conversation. You have a product or a brand, but you are also providing value for its own sake.

No social media marketing starter kit should be without "start a blog" as the first step. Even if you have to pay a consultant (like us) to set it up and help you maintain it, the ROI beats any type of online advertising (CPM, CPA, PPC, lead gen, email), SEO, traditional advertising (print, radio, TV, outdoor, event), or paid public/media relations. It's not an all-encompassing solution, and these others can complement it. It's just the single best and most cost effective one. Because we've done all of the above and have never experienced ROI results like this.

Chris: Great starter kit, indeed. Max Gladwell used all of those tactics and more, and in less than four months we've had a fair bit of success.

We took it a step further in "Be a Beacon" (http://www.maxgladwell.com/2008/06/be-a-beacon-...), and attempted to analogize and try to explain why we do all of these things. We think it's best described as (a) first making yourself discoverable by those who are looking for you and (b) sending enough signals so they cross paths with those who might not be actively looking for you, but would happy to follow that signal back to its source and find you.

Love your work, btw.

They're doing some cool stuff with Timberland, as well: http://www.maxgladwell.com/2008/06/timberland-p...

Viral isn't a strategy. It's an outcome. Those DirecTV commercials poked fun at this distinction. "We go viral. We're gonna blog it out."

The Jack Johnson network (http://www.maxgladwell.com/2008/04/the-jack-net...) also raises donations for environmental charities, and members get exclusive access to tracks. Very cool.

First, is was a beer funnel, not a whiskey shot, that lead Frank the Tank to go streaking. We assume he did not have time to make it to Bed Bath & Beyond.

I'm hedging my bets with Plurk, but it just doesn't feel right. I'm guessing a third-party developer will be able to do a better job of organizing it and making a new interface.

Thanks for the great tips. Nothing beats quality content (like this). It attracts readers and keeps them coming back.

This is indicative of two things: first, people are waking up to the reality of Facebook as a walled garden that's going in the opposite direction of utility. And now that Microsoft is calling the shots, the exodus will continue.

But the bigger issue is that pure social networking is not a business model. That's why LinkedIn is cranking. Everyone is there for a purpose other than to socialize. And they've leveraged that into a multiple revenue streams.

Facebook will be lucky if MS offers them $3B, and even that is ridiculous. YouTube was overpriced at $1.65B, and they still haven't figured out how to make money on it. Though it has a lot more promise than Facebook.

This is a foregone conclusion. I commented on it in your post about FriendConnect and wrote about it the other day: http://www.maxgladwell.com/2008/05/facebook-sta...

I'd be very surprised to see FB get anywhere near $15B, but stranger things have happened. The problem is that Facebook loses tremendous good will in the hands of Microsoft. It's already bleeding brand equity in the wake of FriendConnect and emergence of OpenSocial.

But I see history repeating: just as Netscape was destroyed by Microsoft after it exited to AOL, the same will happen here. Only it will be Google who kills Facebook by making social networking obsolete as a business. It never was a business. And there are more lessons to be learned in the amount of market share Firefox has taken from Microsoft. Open is more competitive and better for everyone. The evil empire will fall. They always do.