Great timing Mack!

There's an article on the front page of today's NY Times about the new Web 2.0 bubble and how all these young 'uns are once again becoming zillionaires.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/business/media/17bubble.html?ex=1350360000&en=093a328f06cb00a5&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Nice article btw (yours, not the Times') a perfect example of why
Your Brand Is Not My Friend™

Yeah -- it's funny how the Times is always trying to stay one step ahead of MarketingProfs...

; )

I hate to be overly critical, :>) but it's just that you started your post with the headline How to Make BIG Money on Facebook. Isn't that just an attention grab to get people to read your post Mack? I think you're going a bit too far.

Is the post about that? Of course not.

You don't say til the end of the second graf that it's not likely.

And I think you mean "they don't give a damn," since they don't give a damned is not correct English.

just busting your chops Mack. after all, a lot of that goes on around here. :>)

Mack,

I agree with you regarding Facebook, but I think we all too often try to lump Facebook, which operates like Central Park--a big open space for all kinds of people--in with business blogs, established by business people or even personal blogs. They are different animals and have little in common.

My comment here is motivated by your post at The Viral Garden yesterday (http://moblogsmoproblems.blogspot.com/2007/10/reaching-your-customers-by-joining-them.html), where you seem to say that communities create the rules of engagement and mention Facebook along with blogs and podcasts. I think you are right when it comes to Facebook, wrong when it comes to the other communications channels (http://lgbusinesssolutions.typepad.com/solutions_to_grow_your_bu/2007/10/blogging-for-re.html).

Ann sorry I couldn't answer comments sooner, the Wall Street Journal was begging for a quote for an article they are running soon on businesses joining Facebook ;)

You're right BL, that headline was over the top, but it was on purpose. Because I wanted to perk the ears up of the people that ARE thinking 'Why hell yes I *do* want to know how to make BIG money on Facebook!' I wanted to get their attention to let them know that they will NOT be successful on Facebook if they are simply thinking about what they can TAKE from the community.

IOW I was being a bit mean toward the people that want to use social sites just to sell stuff or make money from the community. That's cause I tend to get a bit pissy when people, especially marketers, try to take advantage of any community. Marketers don't drive Facebook, its community of users do. If marketers want to be successful on Facebook, they have to check their marketing hats at the door and learn to become valuable community members.

just like i was trying to perk up the ears of people who aren't spending *any* time on twitter. :>)

You absolutely roped me in with the headline, but this line has to be my favorite:

"Amazingly, Facebook's millions of users aren't sitting online waiting to crap cash in your bank account if you'll only come and take it from them."

Well said. I still find it amazing how many people are shocked by this.

@Ann - The Times has nothing on you. :)

"just like i was trying to perk up the ears of people who aren't spending *any* time on twitter. :>)"

I get that and I think everyone that read it did. But I think in saying that every marketer should spend a lot of time on Twitter every day, you kinda muddled the point you were trying to make. That, coupled with your comment about 'pushing the envelope' by encouraging your clients to use Twitter every day, made the post come across as nothing but a sales pitch for your services, instead of a post about how valuable Twitter is.

At least that's how it came across to me.

Mack,

We're getting off the subject but since you and BL started it, I have to add my two cents. I did not see BL's comment as promoting her services. All writers should us a real example to make their case, and when they use one out of their own experiences, that is even better. And that's what BL did.

I, too, took issue with lots, but for a very different reason. I just don't see Twitter as a place that I will ever spend more than a few minutes a day.

"We're getting off the subject but since you and BL started it, I have to add my two cents. I did not see BL's comment as promoting her services. All writers should us a real example to make their case, and when they use one out of their own experiences, that is even better. And that's what BL did."

Maybe I was taking it the wrong way then. I kinda wrinkled my nose at the 'a lot' thought, then BL's comment with her referencing Marshall's thought and 'pushing the envelope' just struck me as being a sales pitch. Which are just fine on your own blog, but I think they should be used with caution on a group blog such as this.

BTW it's entirely possible that I'm the only one that feels this way, and that I totally misinterpreted BL's meaning ;) If I did, then I apologize.

Mack,
I don't think you need to apologize--our opinions are valuable and are what make blogging interesting and informative. In this case, your opinion makes us recognize that MarketingProfs Daily Fix (like Facebook) are different places and spaces than our own blogs, and we need to respect and honor those differences.

By the way, on your blog this week, you lump Facebook in with blogs and podcasts and threw in community rules to boot. I may have misread that post but I did take issue with it today at my place. This post, which focuses on Facebook and by implication other public spaces, makes more sense to me and is one that I can relate to and agree with.

Lewis I wasn't sure what your point was in the post, but my point was that if marketers join a social site such as Facebook, they have to view it as a community. And if they aren't willing to play by that community's rules, they shouldn't be there.

For example, Facebook's users don't go there hoping that marketers will hit them with a sales pitch. But if marketers will take the time to contribute value to the community, then they will probably find that some Facebook members will want to learn more about the business that they are marketing.

But the marketer has to view it as 'I give you something of value first, then you MIGHT give me permission to talk to you about my business'. If marketers aren't willing to invest the time and effort necessary to create and build relationships, relationships that MIGHT lead to increased business, then they shouldn't be on Facebook.

Mack,

Agreed. When you add blogs and podcasts to that argument, as I thought you did at your post, and then add that we must play by the rules established by the community, I read that to be encompassing of all social media efforts. And, as you said above, at business blogs and personal blogs the rules are very different from what they are at Facebook. As business bloggers we still need to respect our readers and respond to their wants and needs (if we want readers) but the community doesn't set the rules; instead, we abide by a sense of conversational decorum.

good lord mack - i was sharing my enthusiasm for a tool i find incredibly valuable. I was not promoting my services any more than you, or lewis, or anyone else who puts his/her expertise out every day.

the comments on DailyFix do have the unfortunate tendency of getting bogged down in minutia and missing the forest from the trees.

I think you can agree that is happening to you today and that it happened to me yesterday.

Let's move on.

"When you add blogs and podcasts to that argument, as I thought you did at your post, and then add that we must play by the rules established by the community, I read that to be encompassing of all social media efforts."

Oh I see what you are saying. And I do think that's correct, if you are going to be a business that blogs, you need to play by the blogging community's rules, otherwise you are wasting your time.

For example, take Wal-Mart's 'blog' Life At Wal-Mart (http://walmartfacts.com/lifeatwalmart/) The 'blog' is a disaster, they don't allow comments, and the posts are supposedly by Wal-Mart associates, but are so obviously bad commercials for the company that it's a joke. Wal-Mart is breaking almost every rule that the blogging community abides by with this blog, and as a result, it is likely hurting Wal-Mart's image. If nothing else, it shows that the company is totally clueless about how to successfully integrate blogging into its marketing strategy.

I think the key is to apply marketing strategies in a way that's consistent with the unwritten rules for the community that you are trying to participate in, and reach.

I completely "got" the headline. Found it perfectly sobering and a good tactic.

Why oh why can't companies understand that if they themselves wouldn't like all their ads and fake friendships slapped in their own faces then consumers probably wouldn't either.

It's not rocket science.

But, help a person do something, share something or build something and that's a terrific "ad" for the brand. It's not rocket science but it does take understanding what the community members might need or might delight them.

"And I think you mean "they don't give a damn," since they don't give a damned is not correct English."

No, really...do we seriously now check grammar on blogs and post it in the comments? Has it gotten that conservative and petty in the 'sphere?

Please say it ain't so. I now no longer wonder why more people don't comment.

Or perhaps I'm missing some underlying joke?

Thanks for contributing content on your free time, Mack--agree or disagree with posts, I won't be needling you (or anyone) on typos.

"But, help a person do something, share something or build something and that's a terrific "ad" for the brand. It's not rocket science but it does take understanding what the community members might need or might delight them."

My hope is that as companies begin to realize that they need to participate in these communities in order to reach its members, that they will eventually begin to realize the enormous potential of empowering their evangelists. I think that's the next step, as the companies that are making a sincere effort to bring value to these communties will no doubt begin to see that community members will evangelize their efforts.

Participate, yes...but here's where it gets really tricky: they can't "control" it. Sometimes they need to facilitate it by sponsoring a way for these communities to advance (for example, MProfs having a blog like this with many biz bloggers is facilitating this community). But they can't play a large part in them (just like MProfs has many contributing writers, not just writers from MP).

Co's need to understand that balance. The payoff for co's are the insights in the idea exchange (listening to those convos and drawing intelligence to build new products, improve products, identify new market segments, empower evangelists, etc.).

That's gonna be tough for a lot of co's. Worth it, but tough to let go.

"Co's need to understand that balance. The payoff for co's are the insights in the idea exchange (listening to those convos and drawing intelligence to build new products, improve products, identify new market segments, empower evangelists, etc.).

That's gonna be tough for a lot of co's. Worth it, but tough to let go."

Bingo and amen. It's tough for companies because they are used to a 'take first, ask questions later' approach. Hard for many to shift their thinking to 'we need to GIVE our customers something so that they will open up to us and be willing to work WITH us to improve our processes'.

Social media is a great facilitator for starting the conversation between company and customer.

I'm still trying to figure out how to crap cash :) - the award winning best metaphor of the week!

I do absolutely celebrate the way social media can help facilitate a better understanding of people's needs for services and products. I love the honest, varied and rapid feedback that it enables. Because good marketing is about finding things we can profitably deliver to meet needs, we have always had to do this - it is just a bit harder without real-time dialogue.

It's a measure of how poorly this has been done, though Bob, when social media commentators like yourself come across so cynical and anti marketers efforts.

We should remember also - social media may be run by the rules of the community but who pays for it? If we are to avoid dot-com 2.0. we need a symbiotic relationship.