Thought Labs Blog

At the New Marketing Summit yesterday, someone said "Social Media is a commitment, not a campaign". This has been said over and over again in books like Groundswell, at conferences, and in countless blog posts. But the majority of businesses still act as if they can dip their toe in the water and then leave if they don't get results right away.

Part of the commitment is building trust between a brand and its consumers. Consumers want to know that the brand is sincere and will be active before they will invest their time. If brands prove this to them with consistent action and dedicated resources, consumers will give back tenfold.

For example, Start Up Blog posted a recent article entitled "On Social Networks, Give and You Shall Receive". They detail the case of Train Signal, an IT training company. Iman Jalali, Train Signal's director of sales and marketing, said "I really feel like a company blog should be treated as its own living, breathing entity, rather than a chore. It should make you feel like you walked into the company's office and you now have a personal connection with that company." Because of this, they have a very active blog, with customers contributing new topics daily. Train Signal also follows the same process on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

Consumers want to get involved with brands. Businesses who commit to developing relationships with those consumers will be the ones who are successful in the world of Social Media.

Tags: Blogs, Social Media, Twitter

Gary Vaynerchuck just did a quick ustream talk in response to a comment he received via Twitter. The comment by @CreativeEmbassy said that companies are waiting for the tipping point before moving into Social Media. Gary's response was that it will be too late then. The time to get in is now, so that you can practice, make mistakes and learn from them. That way, when the tipping point does come, your brand will be ready.

Tags: Social Media, Tipping Point

Gary Vaynerchuck's post - You Down With ROI?…Yeah You Know Me - says that it isn't the social media companies that will be affected by the current financial environment, it is the traditional media companies like radio, newspapers and magazines. Spending large amounts on print ads or radio ads will not produce the ROI it has in the past, as people move out of those media.

One alternative would be to create a company Twitter account to follow and interact with real customers. Hubspot ran a recent webinar about using Twitter and pointed out some great examples such as Zappos, Comcast, Amazon and Whole Foods. Comcast apparently watched for 2 months before interacting with their @comcastcares account and now offers support via Twitter. Amazon offers new deals with its @amazondeals account. Zappos shows off all employee tweets at What are Zappos employees doing right now? Whole Foods lets customers interact, check inventory, and discuss experiences via @wholefoods. This whole operation could be staffed with several interns or some full time employees and could totally change customers views and appreciation for your brand.

Instead of print advertising, companies could place ads on related blogs for rock bottom prices and track the actual results. Impossible with traditional media.

The market may be down, but the shift to online media continues to accelerate. Now is the time to get going with Social Media. Ask us how to get started.

Tags: ROI, Social Media, Twitter

This week I attended the excellent MassTLC unConference. Among excellent sessions on effective use of Twitter, how to generate free PR, common startup mistakes, and others the unConference was a stellar event. One of the sessions I attended was about the process and best practices on raising the first round of funding for a startup. It was run by Steve O'Leary (of General Catalyst Venture Partners) and James Gershwiler (of Common Angels: "Boston's Largest Network of Technology Investors" .) The session was incredibly informative for someone who's new to the process of getting their startup funded via VC or Angel money. This is going to be a long post, but the information I found to be invaluable and interesting since it came directly from active investors and VCs.

The first thing to understand is what the differences are between 'VCs' and 'Angels.'

VCs are companies that raise money from 3rd parties (individuals, institutional investors), manage this money in a fund, and deploy this money in hopes of a return on the investment. These funds have a term like any loan (usually < 10 years.) VCs expect returns on their investment relative to the pool of money the manage in the fund, usually in the range of 10-20% of the pool. A 'small' VC fund is about $200 million: a VC of this size would expect a return of $10-$20 million on their investment. So it's critical that you choose a fund that matches your company's mission: if your vision is to grow to be a $2 million company don't shop for VCs that have multi-billion-dollar funds under management.

Angels are usually individual investors but can also be hybrids (syndicates of individuals.) Some have money under management, some do not; however, the money is usually theirs, not a 3rd party's. Angels tend to be cashed-out entrepreneurs with expertise in their fields. They usually invest in people they know, businesses they understand expertly, or in referrals from trusted sources. Angel investors generally make much smaller investments (< $10 million in most cases) but may band together to invest larger amounts of money. Certainly there are some Angels with vast resources but most invest much less than $10 million individually. As a rule of thumb individuals have less money than institutions.

The panel discussed 'qualifying questions': these are the things that VC and Angel investors need answers to immediately before considering an investment. They are (in no particular order here):

• What's the size of the company? How big (meaning how big a valuation) can it get?
  • a VC would most likely invest in a company that can meet their requirements for returns (remember: rule of thumb is 10-20% of their fund size and within a timeframe that they receive these returns in time to pay back fund's investors!)

• At what stage of funding is the company (none, angel, VC round A/B/C)?
  • VCs usually expect to take 20% of profits
  • VCs usually have an expense/load amount - that is, their 'paycheck' - of about 2%. This is what you must pay them regularly just like you would pay an employee.
  • Different VCs have different risk profiles - some invest in only early startups which have much higher risk (thus potential for higher reward); some invest only in late-stage startups which are less risky. Generally, a VC's risk profile is related directly to the size of the fund(s) it manages.
  • Order of liquidation if company fails: debtors, VCs, other investors
• What expertise does the company have?
  • Having advisers - non-paid individuals that are helping you out since they know you and have connections - that are respected as experts in a field is a huge help. They cannot write the check but they can make it much easier to get your foot in the door of those that can.
  • Early-stage VC investors are usually experts themselves in specific fields; they know if an idea is viable. Late-stage investors are usually generalists with access to experts as needed. They are more focused on financial outcomes.
• What's the company's overall business strategy?

• Where is the investing firm in the life of its fund?
  • Later investments are 'harder' for VCs since they are under more pressure to succeed (they're closer to having to pay back the money they borrowed to invest.)
  • Example: a VC that's 6 years into an 8-year fund is less likely to take a risk than one that is just starting a fund.

The panel then discussed how to 'pitch' your idea, company, or service to investors. Everyone who reads this has most likely heard stories about this. And what everyone has heard probably involves some drama and horror. So it was very interesting to hear feedback directly from actual investors to cut through the myth and misinformation that surrounds this feared, mystical, and often hallowed process.

So, what do investors look for in a good pitch? First, they are always on the lookout for a 'Big Idea' that addresses a big or untapped market opportunity. Less competition == more possibility for success. Also, a successful pitch will show that the company will have more than one revenue stream.  Always be sure that your company shows potential for more than one revenue stream, at least three unless your idea is 'revolutionary'. And trust me, it most likely is not (sorry!) For example, one investor said he would 'never' invest in anything related to the blogosphere - it's a monolithic revenue stream that does not scale. If a blogger stops blogging, revenue stops too. One can only blog so many hours a week until they drop dead. And they do. Even Arrington is going to have to slow down at some point. Another thing is that investors realize is that the business plan that a company uses when they pitch invariably changes as the company moves through the funding process. Can the company cope? If so, how? Do they have a strong enough vision and understanding of their markets to make relevant changes without blowing the scope of the product or its time to market? Can the company deal with very frank discussions about changes in their product or service without causing collapse or a deleterious change in direction?

The discussion then turned to the 'Elements of the Pitch.' It involves five areas of risk and return: people, the problem, market size, competition, and the company's 'go to market strategy.' I will address each of these in turn.

First, and most important by far - all investors present wholeheartedly agreed on this point unanimously - are the people involved in the company. Credibility is king and nothing trumps it. If you've never sought funding or had entrepreneurial success before the funding process is most definitely going to be much more difficult for you. Having a set of trusted, successful advisers on board is key. One investor said something along the lines of: "You want to find that one guy that you'd invest in no matter what he did. You just KNOW he'd find a way to make money regardless of what it was. If this guy starts a hot dog cart I'd be the first one to give him money..." If you aren't that guy (or girl) find someone who is and ask them to be an adviser.

Secondly, the investors want to understand the problem, and be sure that you do, too. "What pain are you trying  to solve, or 'what's the pain you fix'?" This is where the company's product or service enters into the mix. If you are looking for early funding, expect that the investors will be experts in your product's industry. If they are not, you are doing it wrong. Why? Because someone from the investment firm WILL sit on your company's board. The relationship must be both beneficial and reciprocal. Expert investors that sit on your board can be HUGE resources that could help your company land critical customers, crush the competition, or avert catastrophe. Or they can be enormous drains that can hamper your ability to execute, or worse, drive the company in the wrong direction. Remember that once you take funding you are ceding some control to the investor and their goals must be the same or at least in line with your company's. You better be able to work with this person! Also, one big question that comes up frequently is, "does the product work?" If it's theoretical do you have expert proof of its viability?

Next, what is the market size you are entering? Is it an emerging or mature market? Is it's growth explosive (social media) or flat (RAM)? Can you prove it? How well do you know the market you are in?

Analysis and understanding of your competition follows as the next important element in your pitch. The worst thing you can do is state, "...the only competition we have is ourselves. Our product is so revolutionary there just are not any other competitors." All the investors knowingly laughed out loud at this. It supposedly happens all the time. "Trust us," they basically said, "EVERYONE ALWAYS has competition. And you better know who they are, what they do, how they do it, and where they do it." You must also prove that you understand your past, present, and future competitors. If you are in a highly-regulated market (like pharmaceuticals or mission-critical systems) then regulatory agencies become your competitors and you must intimately understand them and their requirements.

Finally, the pitch has to address the strategy your company has for getting to market. What's your company's sales model and distribution plans? How will you reach your market? The more efficient your sales model is the more likely you are to get funding. A sales model that eats up 40% of your budget or is very labor-intensive will be eyed with extreme suspicion. Efficiency and speed are key here, as is the ability to prove ROI.  Better to have multiple models that drive those three (or more) revenue streams I mentioned above. As part of this strategy, you should at least think of your exit plans if the need arises. Profitability is something you ought to be mindful of but there are reasons to remain unprofitable for as long as possible.

Other things like time lines (different stages of development, deployment, growth, etc. shown over time) and current status reports are also helpful. The worst thing you can do is to shop 'every investor in town' with the same pitch. Most likely the first one will have a ton of excellent feedback. Use it. Retool as needed. It's exponentially more difficult to get funding from an investor or VC once they've shown you the door. Some have one-shot-only policies as a rule. Even if they do not the burden of proof weighs very heavily on your shoulders if you approach them again. Best to use your least-likely choice as a sounding board and incorporate their feedback before pitching to the one(s) you really care about.

An insightful listener asked about the effects the current market woes are having on investors and their willingness to take new risks. One investor said the new conditions were "GREAT!" He said almost everything (goods, labor, real estate) is cheaper in a slow market and therefore it's a great time to grow a business. Another voiced some concern in the three- to five-year window because of longer funding-to-exit times the industry now faces due to the new rules of financial markets. The mean time before first funding to exit in 2001 was 2.1 years. Now, it's eight. IPOs are more difficult because of consolidation and restructuring of the financial markets. It's better to have the mindset of "what's the likely path of being acquired" rather than "how do we go public." IPOs are much more difficult to pull off these days.

Hopefully this shed some light on the process of getting your company its first round of financing, even if it is just a reinforcement of what you already know. Kudos to MassTLC for getting all of these people in one place at one time - it's rare that you get access to investors or Angels in a situation where you are able to ask questions without being there for a pitch.

Tags: angel, funding, investing, investor, MassTLC, startup, technology, unConference, VC, venture capital

Yesterday, I attended a conference put on by MassTLC called the Innovation unConference. It was probably the most interesting conference I have ever attended for a few reasons. First, the unConference format was very interesting. The day started with a brief overview of how the conference would work and then 5 mins of full attendee self-introductions. Then masses of people started announcing topics that they would present on, claiming times and rooms by placing cards on a big chart on the wall. If topic conflicts occurred, topics were moved or discarded. Soon the wall was full. There were 4 timeslots for sessions, 1 lunchtime networking session, a group exercise, and a post-event discussion.

The attendees were a mix of established entrepreneurs, new startups, Angel and VC investors, and other professionals. There were endless opportunities to learn from everyone around you about some aspect of being an entrepreneur. Access to all this knowledge in one spot is incredible uncommon.

The first session I attended was entitled - Mistakes Startups Make. They were:

1. Choosing the wrong business type. The experts said that the most common correct type would be c-corp, perhaps starting out as s-corp, because it is an easy vehicle for future VC funding. LLC's may seem to be cheaper in the start, but there are tax implications in switching to a C-corp later on. There is also some standardization of operating agreements and other documents released by Paul Graham's Y Combinator.
2. Having an Idea versus a company. There are lots of great ideas, but not all of them make a great company. Need to do the market research and think about why someone would want to put money into the company and how they would get it back. Need a business plan. Need to understand the sales channel.
3. Improper use of VC. The best time for getting investors is when you don't need them. Startups need to research VC and Angel investors before pitching them. They will sit on the board and have a direct impact on the company. Each investor offers expertise as well as cash, so it is important to find the right match. Some recommended taking the biggest amount of funding in the first round as possible, because that is when you will have to give up the biggest share of the company. Also, picking the right investor is important, as big name investors can help attract big name talent.
4. Doing a startup first. It was recommended to work for someone else first to gain that knowledge and learn what works and doesn't. Use this also as an opportunity to find people you can learn from and later on have as advisors or board members.
5. Not knowing why they are there. Understand your reasons for being in business. Know your strengths. Successful startups have at least 1 business guy, marketer, and technologist.
6. Not having advisors. Get others who have been successful to help. Often this will cost 1% equity, but will make a huge difference in the success of the company. Advisors and boards also provide accountability. Founder time is scarce, and advisors can help focus their efforts on the core business.

The next session was called "How Not to Get Free Publicity" and was put on by Scott Kirsner. Key points were basically doing the opposite of the slides. Here is what you should do:

1. If a competitor gets written up, don't whine to the reporter about it. Instead, post a relevant comment describing your company in the articles online comment section.
2. On your website, make it easy for press to contact you. Have the name of a real person, along with a phone number and email address. Don't hide behind a form.
3. Respond quickly to questions. This can make a huge difference in whether your information makes it into the article.
4. Show your location. This helps get local PR. If you have multiple locations, show them all.
5. Have full bios. Give real details, make them interesting, and show prior work. Sometimes, reporters are looking for experiences in prior companies for stories.
6. Be read in your responses. Don't give canned answers. You can be combatitive if you can get away with it, like Scott McNeely, but this doesn't work most of the time.
7. Talk off the record. If you are in a quiet period, you don't have to divulge all the details, but you can talk about the industry and other background information.
8. Have interesting headshots. Use non-traditional photos in high-res. These are much more likely to be used.
9. Contact the press directly. You don't always need your own PR firm to get to the press.
10. Blog. Have a lot of visible content to draw from and link to.
11. Give the big scoops to the big names. Don't waste it on a little place when a large outlet could do more for you.
12. Press releases should have full contact info so that people can follow up with you.

There is a great set of interviews from the event by Lois Paul & Partners and a flickr set by thopcraft.

Tags: MassTLC, PR, Social Media, Strategy, VC

Yesterday, I attended a conference put on by both the Sales and Marketing and Social Media Clusters of MassTLC. The panelists were:

Paul Gillin, Gillin Communications
John McArthur, Walden Tech Partners
Jeremy Selwyn, Taquitos.net
David Vellante, Wikibon.org

Each Panelist gave an overview of their business, and Paul Gillin then asked them a series of questions.

The key points:

1. Getting started. You need to build a personal brand. Do this by consistently publishing content, attending or holding meetings and conferences. Link to others, and eventually you will get links back. Take a look at The Corporate Blogging Book by Debbie Weil and Groundswell by Charlene Li and Josh Bernoff.
2. Time commitments. Many people worry about how much time this will take. One panelist said that he spent 4 hours reading for each hour of posting. Most panelists spent only a few hours a week.
3. Reuse of content. Publish content on one medium, such as a blog, and then reuse it as a newsletter or white paper. Post status updates about it on LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter. Cross-pollinate.
4. Interactivity. Be successful by involving the community. Ask questions to invite feedback. This will both increase your pageviews and create opportunities for new content.
5. Dealing with negativity. Many are afraid of this. However, it doesn't have to be a liability. First, if you don't provide a venue for feedback, it will happen somewhere else, where you might not be able to participate as much. Second, your community will begin to police itself, helping to deal with problems. Third, you should delete spam and profanity, but leave the negative comments. Address them directly, and you can turn those people into future supporters.
6. Tagging and SEO. Make sure that all your content is tagged. Make your blog post titles and their urls contain the keywords from the article. Tag videos and photos. This will help Google and therefore your users find you. 80% of traffic comes from Google searches. You can use a site like WebsiteGrader.com to get a review of your current site's SEO readiness.
7. Critical Mass. Most blogs die after 2 weeks. Be consistent, and you can reach critical mass by 1000 posts\articles or 2000 community members.
8. Metrics. Most important metrics to the panelists were domains of visitors, unique visitors, repeat visitors, page views and exit pages. Use Google Analytics to help with this.

MassTLC put on another great event, filled with good panelists and interesting attendees. I look forward to attending their upcoming unConference.

Tags: MassTLC, Social Media, Strategy

Facebook reported yesterday that they are new Events API calls that will

"...allow applications to create, modify, and cancel events, as well as submit a user's RSVP to any event that the application created.

With an active session and the appropriate extended permissions, your application can manage your users' schedules for any events created through your application. These events appear on their profiles alongside all their other events, so they can easily keep track of what's coming up as well as invite more friends. Applications that could take advantage of this include those that manage personal events and those that host events."

They've also updated the events APIs to be sessionless as well.

Tags: Facebook

Techcrunch is reporting that sometime tonight Facebook will be offering users more filters for their newsfeed. It remains to be seen how this will affect viral channels. Currently there are only a few filters available so this will open it up some. It may also make it more difficult for applications.

Tags: Facebook

Marketing Sherpa had an interesting post recently on Facebook Pages. I wanted to comment on it since I think though relevant and timely it missed some really relevant points that our clients face as soon as they decide to get a Facebook presence. One specifically: that they are 'free'. Here's the post: http://www.marketingsherpa.com/article.html?id=30590.

As a social media company that has been providing custom Facebook Pages for a wide variety of clients since their launch I feel that this post - and the opinion on the Web in general - is that it's really critical to understand with these Pages is that even though they are 'free' they also look free.

What do I mean?

All of them tend to look the same, have the same apps, and don't do a great job of getting a brand out there with any degree of uniqueness. Go ahead. Try it out.

I'll wait. They are 'easy to build.'

Done?

How does it look?

Now search some other Facebook Pages. Compare it to the one you just created. How similar is it?

Thought so. Nearly identical, right?

I'm not trying to sell our services here; however, I have heard stories of a number of companies who believe that these pages are the Holy Grail of 'Getting their Brand on Facebook.'

Remember this: Facebook Pages can host custom applications. This is what makes them different from Facebook Groups. But, more importantly, it's what makes them even MORE complex than most custom Facebook applications to develop. The entire world of social media is about two things: engagement and influence. A plain Facebook Page offers none of the former or the latter. The same rules apply for all other social media ROI as I've said in this post. Depending upon your social media strategy you need to understand that to make your Facebook page look and more importantly feel branded you have to develop some custom applications to make it so. Perhaps several. And yes, this costs. It costs money, time, and thought to get it right for your brand or strategy. I have heard some major marketing media firms talk about the fact that a custom Facebook application is more complex than a Branded Facebook Page.

Quite simply put: they are completely and utterly wrong.

Some other critical points that people looking at Facebook Pages miss:

• Drop-off rates from users who are led to other sites OUTSIDE of Facebook from a Facebook Page are horrfically high. > 90% in most cases (our numbers). If you think you are going to slap a Facebook Page up and expect users to happily leave the walled garden of Facebook to visit your existing Web properties for monetization or content you have surprises in store for you. Big ones. That you won't like.
• Fans of your Page WILL contain your competitors. Why? Because you can update every one of your fans at once once per day. Think about it. This is critical to starting a conversation and moving your brand or strategy forward. Don't fear this; embrace it! Fan their pages, too. Remember, this whole thing is SOCIAL.
• One of the popular apps available for free from Facebook for Pages is a Forum widget. A lot of companies are still terrified of UGC (user-generated content). 'What if someone says something negative about our brand/service/company/content?' We hear this a lot. What happens is a conversation that you can turn into something more positive than you can possibly imagine. Remember the Digg effect: removing negative or controversial (to you) content can have HUGE negative consequences almost never worth experiencing. See the book Groundswell for more information. Do not fear this. Any conversation is an opportunity to grow your brand/service/company for the better.
• Someone representing your brand/service/company needs to be involved with the design of the Page from the beginning. It needs to reflect your B/S/C in a way that reflects what is important to YOU.
• Your Page must be ready to change. It is NOT a website. If you want viral spread, if you want more fans, if you want people to start and continue the conversation you need to make sure USERS COME BACK. Engagement, people! ENGAGEMENT.

Facebook Pages are a critical tool that can really help your social media strategy. But be aware they are not free if you are expecting real results from them.

Tags: Facebook, Facebook Pages, Marketing, ROI

One of the first questions we usually are asked by potential clients of Thought Labs involves ROI (return on investment.) It is a valid and critical question, no matter the size of the company or its marketing budget. It's the yardstick used when evaluating the success of a traditional media or marketing campaign, so why not expect the same rules to hold true for social media? How can one be sure in the changing world of the web and online marketing that their dollar will have an impact on their bottom line? Will their investment increase brand recognition, generate leads, or increase their market penetration? Unfortunately there is currently no 'silver bullet' of measurement that can demonstrably prove ROI for a social media investment. There are startups working feverishly on the problem, to be sure, but the state of affairs today requires a different approach and restatement of the problem.

This approach is based on setting and meeting a set of clearly defined objectives rather than using measurements in the traditional sense, though some of them may still be valid. Companies have to ask themselves a very simple question: "Why are we investing in social media, and what would we consider a successful result?" It seems trite, in a way, but it is critical to understanding the new meaning of ROI. It's not about return on investment anymore. It's all about defining the meaning of ROI as it applies to your business. It's all about gaining influence or leverage for your investment and measuring the return on that influence.

Influence is the key concept at the core of social media. Peer/friend opinions and reviews hold more sway than any other. Brands can be created in an instant and just as quickly destroyed when you are dealing with the economies of scale and the numbers of users involved on social networks such as Facebook and MySpace. But social media encompasses so much more. Myriad online communities exist and all are potentially valid social media outlets. Companies need to understand that by focusing only on the immediate effect on their bottom lines they may be missing the point; additionally, casting too wide a net is just as shortsighted.

One other area that companies need to understand is the new concept of 'engagement' as it applies to their social and new media strategies. What is 'engagement?' That's the million- or perhaps billion-dollar question. There is no metric for it that means the same thing to everyone. One interesting equation of sorts has been proposed by socialmedia:

E = mc^2

...which translated means:

Engagement = media buy * (creative ^ 2)

I agree in a sense. Creativity is STILL KING. You can spend millions on your media buy to get your social media product noticed. But, if it's not creative (or for you math geeks as creativity approaches 0) your engagement tanks. It's simple, but critical to understand this. True, this all depends upon your objectives. You have to put your social media assets in context: if you are looking for tons of repeat users (i.e. page views, visits, etc.) and engagement is near zero, FAIL.There are enough single-use social media apps and widgets out there that support this hypothesis that it's not worth expanding upon. If you want your clients to come back, you need to interact with them. You have to engage them to make them come back.This is critical for both growing brands and generating leads. The traditional marketing funnel is still relevant - but the rules that govern the journey from one end of it (eyeballs on your content) to the other (the buy) have changed. You have to provide content that engages them all along the way. Think of it as 'social content affinity'.

Another thing that businesses need to understand is that the content viewing model on the Web has changed. Think of it as an extension of the 80/20 rule. In the past when content was put on the web you could expect about 80% of your audience to see that content within a short period of time. If your spend was X at some specific or measured CPM you could expect some specific results based on traditional measurements. This is no longer the case with social media. Now, you can expect about 20% of your media to be viewed (if you're lucky) and over time, if you're influence and engagement are high enough, you can expect that 80% to come trickling - or ideally virally pouring - in after it's available for some time. It's not a linear graph anymore. You hope it's exponential. But it's not guaranteed. It's about creating a social media campaign that is relevant to YOUR business and your needs. No one can do it for you if you don't understand why your business is playing in the social media space in the first place and what you'll consider a successful result.

So:

• Develop a social media plan: 'Why are we doing this? What would we consider a social success?'
• Make sure that plan is realistic: viral spread of apps and widgets is much harder on ALL the networks these days. Do NOT assume that it will spread just because it's there! And if you don't change it over time if needed it will die over time.
• Define your own ROI: it's about meeting your objectives. Seriously. Tell your CEO/CFO. Make them understand this.
• Make someone OWN your problem on YOUR end - that means on your business's end: you cannot expect someone to do everything for you and guarantee excellent results. You need to understand and manage your end of the social media strategy. It's not easy (anymore) - you are going to need to work at it to make it successful. Every social media rollout is different so what steps you need to take may be different in every case. But be aware that paying someone to slap a widget or app up on a social network for you and expecting it to get 10M users in a month is unrealistic. It's just not going to happen anymore. You are going to have to spend. Your time, your interest, and your business's money.
• Develop metrics that matter to YOU: since there are no global ones in the current sense you need your own based on what your plan deems a successful result.
• ITERATE, ITERATE, ITERATE: set a timed goal for reviewing your strategy; if it's not on target at the end of that time then review why, refactor, retest, and relaunch until you get it right. It's NOT ABOUT being the best, smartest, or brightest anymore. It's all about being the fastest and getting the most relevant results based on your plan and the metrics that matter to you. And do it fast. Very, very fast. Beg, borrow, and steal from the successful apps/campaigns you find that meet your needs. It's about speed now. Spending inordinate amounts of time perfecting things just slows your time to market.
• Understand the social media lifecycle: how long do you expect your strategy to live in the wild? Lifetimes are shorter these days. You cannot expect a drop-in solultion to be relevant in a year from now. See the last point. See the fact that the top 25 Facebook applications have changed drastically in the last year. And will again. And again.
• Cast a net that matters to you: there are a ton of social media outlets out there now. Find out where your demographic lives. If they are 50-year-old financial executives then MySpace is probably not worth investing in.

It's all about the conversation now. Be a part of it. Understand that ROI is different now and you control what it means. Define success: what returns on your marketing objectives you consider a win. This is your ROI.

Tags: social media, facebook, myspace, opensocial, marketing, ROI