It wasn't until I clicked on my e-mail marketing supplier's Web site that it gave me problems. Like most new technologies, it takes time to become fully compatible with other programs. My e-newsletter software could not recognize it, and so, I had to revert back to my old IE7 to do my marketing homework.

That doesn't mean I won't give it another try. I heard a Google spokesperson interviewed on NPR radio yesterday and it sounds like this is the first browser entering the world of new media. I applaud their efforts.

Has anyone else tried it yet? What's been your experience?

Show length 24:42

Brought to you by Blue Sky Factory

00:32 John Blue intro - Websites meet Dr. Phil - Not exactly Don LaFontaine though

01:34 Google Chrome Review - the stakes get higher, better usability, dynamic history homepage, all about distribution

09:40 Jake Moore asks about eCommerce Payments. Do people hate PayPal?

14:40 We love 4Q, we just don't use it (or search, sorry Marko)

15:20 Mitch Joel asks about virtual street teams, and planning for a Doomsday scenario

20:40 The Obama campaign scores huge with text campaign

Chris will be at the Podcamp Philadelphia and then Inbound Marketing Summit featuring David Meerman Scott and Seth Godin. John is at The Business of Software, and was just in Maine doing The M Show with C.C. Chapman.

Our theme song is called Mellow G by Fonkmasters from the Podsafe Music Network

Direct Link to File

Not only that, customers can go to Wegman’s web site to learn more. The home page features information on Locally Grown Sustainable Produce that enables Wegman customers to learn more about the actual growers in each region where the retailer has its stores.

In the article, “Wegman’s Touts ‘Locally Grown’ Program,” this quote sums up the entire venture very nicely: “According to Wegman’s, such an initiative is good for the environment because it reduces fuel costs, which helps the grocer offer competitive prices to shoppers”. Sounds like a win for everybody concerned: local growers, retailer and consumers, and wait: the environment.

Of course, on the down side, locally grown produce is not available in the winter, but the retailer’s produce coordinators and managers work with local growers during this “down time” to plan on new varieties for the upcoming growing season. This enables them to offer consumers hybrid and heirloom varieties of fruits and veggies with more flavor and nicer color. According to Wegman’s: “The growers like trying something new, and we like giving customers more choice”.

Wegman’s has also worked with its suppliers on environmental and food safety issues. Growers are encouraged to either use recyclable cardboard boxes to deliver their produce, or sturdy, washable and reusable plastic boxes. Growers are also encouraged to deliver to a number of Wegman’s stores in one day to save fuel and time.

This year, Wegman’s is requesting that its farmer partners seek certification in Good Agricultural Practices (GAP), which sets standards on the use of water, fertilizers, manure and pesticides.

The Rochester NY based Wegman’s chain currently owns and operates 71 stores in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia and Maryland.

Questions:
• As one of the best food retailers in the country, do you think the Wegman’s local farm to fork model should be followed by all grocers across the country as much as possible?
• Are you aware of food retailers that purchase locally grown products where you live?
• Do you think grocery stores have an opportunity to not only educate the public, but to also reinforce public perceptions of quality, source information and accountability, and food safety?
• How much do trust, transparency and traceability matter to you when you purchase food?

I’d love to hear from you.

Yup, Obama is as white as he is black. And yup, there's a marketing lesson in this post.

Being he has a white mother and a black father, the correct term is biracial—a term that reflects, and respects, the races of both his mother and father. (Multiracial is also an important term as many people can claim more than two unique races in their lineage.) Even in Obama's own "American Story" speech given in March he delivered these powerful words underscoring his diverse background:

"I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins of every race and every hue scattered across three continents—and for as long as I live I will never forget that in no other country on earth is my story even possible.”

Indeed it is historical that a biracial man has landed a presidential nomination, and if I were part of his marketing team, I would recommend that this be better (and correctly) communicated. After all, he would be a leader that can uniquely identify with several races--and since the beauty of the country is its diversity, it's apt that our leader inherently understands that.

That said, it would only be one of the messages I would recommend, and certainly not his campaign's core one. Because Obama's racial diversity is not more important than his views, vision and ability to inspire. His platform is based on change, not race.

Even the U.S. government, which we often ridicule for being "behind the times," begun letting respondents check two or more races in their 2000 Census--with results citing that figure at 7.3 million people, of which 43% were under 18. Given the Census Bureau began compiling its data in 1999 that means our government has been getting it right for nearly a decade. But not major media; which we all know greatly influences the public at large.

So, what does this mean for marketers? If you’re a consumer marketer and you don’t know of the growth and implications of biracial and multiracial markets here in the U.S., then you’re behind...like, behind the government (eek!).

In America, Latino markets are on a growth tear; this is news we all know. The news on that front is that the market has grown so large that it's fragmenting into many niches. Asian and Indian markets are poised for healthy growth, too. But watch for biracial and multiracial markets to be growing right alongside them. They'll likely be a focus of yours soon; and they're a very complex (and fascinating) market segment.

Why are multiracial markets complex? Because we marketers have grown so accustomed to giving each market segment one identity, one persona and one profile, it's beyond our traditional scope to understand segments with shared or mixed identities. Don't worry, major media is obviously grappling with it, too. But learn we must. On that note, here are three suggestions:

First: let's start with using appropriate terms. If the media won't, then we savvy marketers can certainly get it right. After all, as marketers it's our core job to know our markets.

Second: begin listening to biracial/multiracial markets. A phenomenal (!) place to start is with this 5-minute video from the NYTimes. Folks, listen to what these multiracial consumers--who've formed a group called Fusion--are telling us; they are explaining: “I am neither one or the other. I am BOTH.”

Or the national organization called Swirl whose founder Jen Chau explains, "In 2000, many of us found ourselves having to explain the idea of mixed identity to others. From strangers to our own families, we have had to answer the questions of people who didn’t believe or couldn’t fathom that we could be “more than one thing” at the same time. We have been asked to choose time and time again — and that’s when we were actually presented with the choice — many times, people have chosen for us. Swirl was created in order to challenge the idea that identity is simple — something that can be discussed in black and white terms."

Third: leapfrog your competition by learning how your offerings and communications can serve and delight these markets. Or customize and create altogether new offerings that cater to these consumers. Look at how music is mixing genres, or how the growth of so-called "fusion foods" are crossing culinary boundaries (e.g. Tex Mex, Pan-Asian, the popular "Sushi Samba" restaurant chain that blends Japanese, Brazilian and Peruvian cuisines). Even "Si TV," a Latino Cable Network, that features Hispanic-rooted programming but intentionally broadcasts only in English (not Spanish) so as to serve consumers who identify with both cultures.

We need to start respecting the unique way these consumers view the world vs. the way the world has been viewing (and incorrectly labeling) them. Because armed with that knowledge comes powerful new ways to build relationships and brand loyalty. After all, the growth isn't in the mainstream. No longer a mass-market country are we. Now we're a mass of micro-niches--many of which are mixed-race consumers who, just like the Census Bureau realized, no longer fit into one box. Let's hope our media can start thinking outside of the box, too.

PS: Again, I really do encourage you to take 5 minutes and watch this video. Amazing what our markets tell us--when we start listening to them.

I sought Jesse’s help in further understanding how he was using FriendFeed for tracking and commenting on all the conversations that were happening at the recent F8, Facebook developer conference.

Here his thoughts and excuse my ignorance on any of these topics for those of you more social advanced.

Link to Original Audio Source

Signup for this Podcast Series

About Jesse

Jesse is a Social Media technologies expert. He specializes in Facebook and other technologies that enable you as a business to better reach your customers in a viral manner, leading to more targeted ad and marketing positions, leading to faster adaptation of your brand through the social networks.

Through his company, Stay N' Alive Productions, he has firm experience developing and providing quality applications that have already had strong successes. He has both developed and consulted for successful social networking applications, some of those which currently have over a million users (the top 90 on Facebook!).

Now, from a graphical design perspective, their logo is nowhere near as attractive as many others, and certainly not as appealing as their doughnuts. But KK has earned a lot of brand loyalty, and so - at least for me - they passed the T-shirt test.

And the mug test (fair balance: I also have Starbucks mugs). I did pass on the HOT NOW boxer shorts, however.

Brand loyalty is often shown by a proud wearing of the colors - since you have very positive feelings about a certain company or product, you will gladly wear the T-shirt, the hat, and other elements of the uniform. Sports teams (college and pro) are the ultimate in this type of sartorial advertising, but your brand can gain a place in the wardrobe of its fans.

The first rule is simple: have a great graphical design for the item you're giving away or selling. Classic, understated logo/tagline designs are commonplace and nice, certainly. Remarkable and funny designs are even more effective if they are congruent with your brand identity. I enjoy wearing my Ravenswood "No Wimpy Wines" t-shirt because it is not only humorous, but it has the wink-wink nudge-nudge element of an "insider" message (I appreciate good wine). And, I never fail to get remarks on my FreshBooks t-shirt, because it has a fake blue tie screen-printed on the front (and I don't even use the FreshBooks software)!

The second rule is much more challenging. You clients and fans need to love you. You have to earn the right to be emblazoned on their body as they walk out the door. They need to riffle through their 25 t-shirts, see yours, and put it on with pride, ready to tell others how great you are. For no logical reason, they need to enjoy that cup of coffee just a little bit more in your mug. Not only because it's cool-looking. But because they feel pretty cool having selected you for a brand.

What brands pass your t-shirt test? To paraphrase a recent credit card commercial: What's in your closet? Share your favorite brands that pass the T-shirt test, and why, in the Comments!

(full disclosure: I should also mention here that there's a very nice Marketing Profs t-shirt that is on regular rotation in my closet. In fact, I think I better go change right now...)

To put that in perspective, imagine if ALL of the residents of Mumbai, Karachi, Istanbul, Delhi, São Paulo, Moscow, Seoul, Shanghai, and Mexico City (the nine largest cities in the world), Athens GA, and Newell PA (pop. 551) were all registered Facebook users. To look at it another way, that's one-third of the US population. Either way, it's a lot of people.

This user base doesn't matter enough for marketers to start formulating a "Facebook strategy." Facebook is one of many channels to choose from and may look attractive versus other social networks, but what about versus search, a loyalty program, or shopper marketing? Your job is to stay elevated above the channels; when including any social technology in your marketing, make sure you have a better reason than drive-thru marketing.

Here's why the number might matter to you. The user base has value according to Metcalfe's law. (In a nutshell, one fax machine is useless, two means we're in business.) If you are an individual and no one you know is signed up, there could be a googol of registered users and it wouldn't matter to you. If you are a marketer, the key is the overlap between 100 million users and your target audience. No overlap means no reason to care.

Odds are that as 100 million grows into 200, you will have more friends, prospects, and customers on Facebook. Then you'll have to wrestle with new issues like the ego trap.

But for now - given that Facebook has hit the 100 million mark - are you paying more attention to the site for personal and/or professional reasons?

And, per the title of this post, what are they listening to?

Here is the top-10 playlist:

1. Hotel California
2. Summer of 69 (Bryan Adams)
3. Stairway to Heaven
4. Layla
5. Nothing Else Matters - Metallica
6. Viva La Vida (Cold Play)
7. Clocks (Cold Play)
8. Comfortably Numb - Pink Floyd
9. Imagine
10. Back in Black- AC/DC

Aside from an affinity for classic rock, turns out the IT community likes to read more than the average person, rates the History Channel as their favorite TV destination, and favors Barack Obama over John McCain for the upcoming presidential election. You can download the survey here.

And we’re assessing them just like we would with any other brand campaign in vetting:

First up at bat is Brand Obama, let’s see what our panelists have to say--and then we’ll ask YOU:

Cam Beck: "If a successful political speech is concrete and traceable to a consistent, specific standard that would guide the speech-giver’s decisions, Barack Obama’s speech was utterly incomprehensible. But his supporters were predisposed to believing whatever he said. They wanted "change" and "hope" -- exactly what his message has been all along -- and that's what the message was. Obama also took great pains to deal with questions about his patriotism. It isn't consistent with his established brand personality, but it's certainly the message he needs other people to believe. But he's doesn't need to convince the convinced. He just needs to give them reason to feign indignation when someone dares to question his political judgment.

The rest was a bunch of promises thrown around with abandon. Of course, that was perfectly consistent with his core message -- but none of which he, as President, would even have the power to keep, even if we could pay for it all (and we couldn't). I said when CK first approached me with this task that I couldn't be objective, but that I'd hate everyone more or less equally. Bearing that in mind, I give the Obama speech 0 stars out of 5."

Stephen Denny: "Barack Obama delivered a beer ad for the left tonight, selling the idea of having it all -- great taste and less filling, all without the beer gut. Really.

I'll give him a 3.5. He delivers a great speech. Much like listening to the Clash in college, you can enjoy the music without buying into the anarchy."

Ann Handley: "Believable: Barack Obama was clearly trying to come across as the Democrat’s Brawny Man, patriotic and strong on defense: A quicker picker-upper who tonight mopped up the doubters.

So how did Obama, the Brand, fare this evening? Well, your answer there is probably a reflection of how you feel about Obama, the Candidate. Bonus points from me because I stayed awake for the whole thing, which is more than I mustered for the previous four nights. Overall ranking: I'll give him a 5. (In part, just to offset Cam.)"

CK: "I found the speech to move between inspiring, bold and comfortable. Inspiring in his message of change/promise, which is consistent with his brand platform. Bold in taking on McCain and the critics MUCH more directly—which is something he must do to show he has the resolve to be Chief Commander. And comfortable in how he relates to people on an “everyman” level.

Now, can he accomplish all he promised? Not sure how “ownable” those objectives are, so that can leave him open to attacks. But, all told, he gave one helluva speech that was on message, addressed a lot of needed messages and pushed his popular brand to new heights. 4 stars."

Drew McLellan "Clearly Obama did not get the memo. Of all the speeches he will ever give – this one wasn’t about politicking – this one needed to be about creating the vision, the dream. This was the night to ignite our passion for his brand promise of change and hope.

But instead of making us hungry for what his presidency promises – he sounded like every other politician. Bash the current guy. Bash the challenger. He wasted the first 20 minutes talking about them. It wasn’t their night. It was his and he missed the opportunity to seize it.

While his key points were consistent with his campaign messages, he dug too deep into the tactical. His brand is aspirational and he should have stayed at that level. This wasn’t the time to roll out the taxation plan, this was his chance to make us believe that this time, it really could be different. Instead, we got a standard stump speech.

Barack’s power is most palpable when he dreams with us. That’s his strength. But he didn’t lead with it tonight. I wanted to be inspired. Instead I was underwhelmed and felt like I had heard it all before. Star Score: 2.0"

Alan Wolk: "Obama needed to do one thing last night: prove that he didn’t have a stick up his ass. A rather blunt assessment, perhaps, but that’s exactly what his opponents have accused him of, only a bit more obliquely. He’s a “celebrity.” “Too intellectual” “Out of touch with ordinary people.”

Obama, as I’ve written previously, often reminds me of none other than President Ronald Reagan. “It’s Morning In America” and “Change You Can Believe In” are really just two sides of the same coin, messages of hope that are about looking to the future, and believing in the can-do spirit of America; messages that are devoid of any negativity and anger. Obama did what he had to do last night and he did it well. I’d give him 4.5 stars."

OK marketers, now that you’ve heard from Brand Obama—and heard from us—what say YOU? How do you rate Brand Obama's acceptance speech, and why? And be sure to join us again next Friday when we do it all over again with Brand McCain.

PS: Full transcript of Obama's acceptance speech is located here.

Start thinking like the media when it comes to your events. Encourage photos. Give people a relevant tag for the event so that if they post pictures or videos online, you might be able to find them via tags. Want to go a little further? Start a Flickr photo group for the overall space where your company plays (which encourages more interaction than if you just start a group about your company).

Write posts about people in your company and what they're doing outside the company. Talk about Surya's bike race. Cover Monica's graduation ceremony for her MBA. Don't write like you're a proud company. Write like a person covering interesting moments in a person's life.

What does this bring back to your company? It brings a sense that you're human, that your organization contains humans, and that every message from you isn't a pitch or a sale. Instead, you're someone who not only markets, but cares about the people inside and outside the organization.

Need some more ideas to start? Here's a post I wrote about blog topics for marketers that should get you going.

What do you think? Is your company ready for this level of engagement?

I recently stumbled upon a terrific article in the New York Times titled, “Photography as a Weapon.” The author of the piece, Errol Morris, is a filmmaker, and in the article he interviews Hany Farid, a Dartmouth professor and an expert on digital photography.

The article highlights some recently faked photographs of a missile launch by the Iranian government, where in an apparent attempt to cover-up a launch failure, the photographs were doctored with a photo application. Instead of showing a possible misfire, smoke clouds and a missile launch were inserted. The photograph was then made available on a website and republished in newspapers across the globe. It wasn’t until a week later that a blogger (of all people) noticed the manipulation and published his findings.

While the whole escapade of creating digital forgeries is interesting, a larger question asked by the NYT article is “why do we trust photographs in the first place”?

Granted there are many avenues through which our minds process information—visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory etc. However, Hany Farid seems to think that many people have a special affinity for photographs and the emotion that they can sometimes evoke. “Vision is a pretty unique sense for the brain,” he explains. “It’s incredibly powerful…so it’s not surprising that it has an emotional effect on us. The brain is very good at processing visual imageries and bringing in memories associated with images.”

This mental processing is so powerful that even after an image is exposed as a forgery, many continue to remember the picture as accurate. Mr. Farid notes, “And there are psychology studies, when you tell people that information is incorrect, they forget that it’s incorrect. They only remember the misinformation.”

This brings us back to the photo manipulation of the Iranian missile launch. Even as the photographs are exposed as a forgery, many people will either not have this updated information, or forget the photographs are a fake. The image of the missile launch, and the ramifications and meaning of the launch are burned into our minds—long after the photo is exposed as fraud.

Jack Trout, in the marketing classic, “Positioning: The Battle for the Mind” mentions that the approach of positioning is to not, “create something new and different, but to manipulate what’s already…in the mind, or retie the connections that already exist.”

I believe the Iranian military is not trying to introduce a new topic by releasing these photos—after all, world powers already know they have military capability. However, fake or not, the missile launch photographs attempt to position a point of view and change the conversation.

With the introduction of these photographs, the conversation changes from, “Does Iran have the capability?”—to instead; “That one launch was a fake, but is Iran still dangerous? Could they strike a neighbor? Could they strike the United States?”

And of course, the cynics among us will ask—rightfully so, “How do we even know there really was a missile launch?”

Regardless, a new conversation is started and in the minds of most people, impressions are altered—mission accomplished for the Iranian military.

I don’t bring up this particular instance of the Iranian photograph to have a political or military discussion. In fact, I’d like to avoid this.

I am, however, interested in how photography is used for marketing purposes and how images (altered or not) can ultimately end up changing perceptions, positions (in our minds), and therefore our actions/inaction.

Questions for DailyFix readers:

• Do you apply careful cynicism/diligence to the pictures you see on the web or in publications?
• Does the medium denote trustworthiness? Meaning a photograph in the LA Times is to believed over one captured in the National Enquirer?
• When a “trustworthy medium” mistakenly publishes an altered photograph, how do you feel? Angry? Cheated? Do you blame the publication or those who produced the photograph?
• What other examples have you seen where someone attempted to “change a conversation” or reposition an existing idea or POV with the introduction of a photograph?
• Every photograph is in essence altered reality to some degree (accounting for time, place and how the photo was framed by the photographer). Why then do we trust photographs in the first place?

I vote for the latter. I don't care if you want to call podcasting 'social media', or 'goat cheese from Nantucket', I just care about what it does, and whether it can help businesses grow and better reach their customers. The label isn't important to me, what the tool DOES and how it can be used to BENEFIT a company is what I am interested in knowing.

And last night on Twitter, I heard a new term 'microsharing'. Now granted, 'microsharing' might be a better term than 'microblogging'--or maybe it isn't.

But I think we are short-changing the advancement of this entire space when we get hung up on something like labels. Tomato or tomato? Who cares? Is it more important to come up with THE 'accepted' definition for 'social media' (until someone moves the goalpost in a month and comes up with a better one), or is it more important to help Company A better understand how ONE of these tools can better help it reach and communicate with its customers?

I say let's worry less about naming the tools, and more about making sure that companies understand how and why they should be using them.

I was surrounded by people who were speaking a certain dialect: Harlean. Technical terms about engines and models and paint colors were tossed about with a mix of both profanity and reverence. Uniforms (mostly black Harley t-shirts), symbols (lots of tatoos), and a certain swagger of the elite were all in vogue. You see, these people were not mere motorcyclists. They were Harley owners.

Over lunch, I discussed my reaction with my friend. He laughed, realizing that the Harley rider community was, indeed, cult-like. I had heard in the past that this was the case in Harley-land, but this was my first visit to one of the temples. As I saw the two-wheeled icons on display, and watched the evident brand attachment in the eyes and voices of the owners, it reinforced something that had been brewing for years in my mind. Brand advocacy isn't always the highest goal to shoot for. You really want to create a cult.

You want people to feel like they've found "it." That they are now part of a special association, an elite, the kind that freely exchanges the secret wave when they pass each other on the highway. You want folks who pull up to a bar or club anywhere in the world, and fellow cult members immediately start a conversation about the icon and their experience of it. You want people who will pay more for the brand t-shirt, who will proudly wear the brand tattoo, who will boast about the apparent advantages of the brand - and you want outsiders to jealously wish they could be part of the club.

You want full alignment with your tagline. These owners really do Ride to Live, and Live to Ride.

My guess is that Harley has managed to tap into certain aspects of the American psyche - the yearning to chuck it all behind, hit the road, make noise, and show the rest of the world that you fully intend to be free. Other cults latch onto different mindsets. Those who are part of the tree-hugging and latte cult aren't likely to be Harley buyers, but that's just fine - they can hop into their Priuses to visit the recycling center and gather to compare Obama and Hillary. Harley riders will roar down the highway to parking lots and rallies anywhere and gather to compare chrome and engines.

I'm not a motorcycle rider (yet?). I feel like quite an outsider in the Harley temple. But I know great marketing and branding when I see it and feel it, and these guys have nailed it big time. Do you have a plan for creating, not just a marketing campaign, but an out-and-out cult?

(Image credit: Harley sign)

How cool is that? If this seems somewhat far-fetched, let’s remember that the original Coke formula is a blend of South American coca leaves and African kola nuts (the caffeine source), as the article aptly points out. Given the attention functional foods and beverages are getting these days, and their high growth potential, I think Coke is onto something here.

Let’s also remember that collaborating with the Chinese when it comes to herbs, is also a great idea. Chinese herbal medicine has been around for thousands of years, so the Chinese are a font of information. Even though this seems to be a top secret project, a short news release did apparently state that Coke and the China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences had opened “a research center in Beijing last October.”

A few tantalizing tidbits have come out here and there. This one caught my eye: “Access Asia, a Shanghai-based market research firm, said in a January report that Coke’s aim could be nothing less than to create ‘the new product for the new millennium’.”

Could it be that a new brand of soft drink is about to be born? One sans sugar? One with healthy herbal ingredients? Could this start a revolution in the beverage industry as Coca Cola did over 100 years ago?

If it does, Coca Cola has a unique opportunity, it seems to me. The company blended exotic ingredients in the past to create a brand new category. It could conceivably do so again—and do it while being in touch with a new era, new consumers and new ideas. . .while still being true to its legacy. Gotta love that.

The worldwide market would be huge right out of the chute for such a new product. North America, Europe, Asia. . .all moving toward functionals in a big way. . . The market is primed and ready. If you ask me, success for such a drink; or drinks (more than one formula may be in the offing) will all boil down to a few factors, as they always do with foods or beverages:
• Taste and aftertaste profiles
• Mouth feel
• Market positioning
• Major features and selling points
• Healthy herbs explained without making undue claims—a major sticking point with FDA
• Packaging

Questions:
• What do you think of Coke’s potential new drink(s)?
• Would you be willing to try a brand new beverage product if Coca Cola was behind it?
• Or would you be reticent, preferring to buy bona fide healthy beverages associated as the mainstay of other brands instead?

I’d love to hear from you.

"But wait!" you say. "What about social media? Customers in control! Advertising doesn't work anymore!" I've been thinking about these issues quite a bit lately and have to break it to you, social media marketing doesn't scale. Most experts agree - social media fits works best as part of an integrated mix, but not at either end of the marketing funnel: the front (building awareness) or the end (driving purchases). For the latter, shopper marketing and direct tactics guided by analytics work best. For the former, mass media works best.

When will a social media marketing campaign be able to claim that it reached 209 million people over a three week period? How about 715 million people for a single event?

$3,000,000 will get you a lot of social marketing stuff. For a category manager, you can set up get your brand portfolio hooked up quite nicely with an enterprise-level brand monitoring contract, a handful of virtual private communities, widgets galore, some sponsored Facebook pages, WOM campaigns, and more. You'll probably even have enough left over to hire the people you need to monitor and manage all those things, because your current skeleton crew has enough to handle in the name of "budget accountability."

But when you work for a public company like P&G and have to generate *billions* of dollars in top-line growth every year, is "conversational marketing" going to get the job done? In the long-run, probably. The seeds of tomorrow's basis for competitive advantage (i.e. strategy) are being sown today. But in the short-run, marketers need to show results and hang on to their jobs.

Social technologies can help marketers get ready for the new brand world of tomorrow, by building a solid internal foundation today. So I say spend it on the ad and lock in the low rate now. What do you think?