That may be a bit more of a stretch for some of you, but it’s crucial from a personal branding perspective. Just ask Shel Israel who did not have www.shelisrael.com purchased and someone else put up a site devoted to poking fun at him.
Other heavyweights like Robert Scoble (www.robertscoble.com) don’t own their domain names either. Re-acquiring a domain name from a cybersquatter has some legal precedent, but it can rack of legal fees or large one-time purchase amounts.
However, let me ask you this. Do you own your personal/corporate Twitter username? How about your YouTube username? How about your Flickr username? If you don’t, it’s probably a good idea that you do (they’re mostly free anyway). I lost out personally on my YouTube name because I used my nickname instead. You may not acquire them all, but you can sure try. These usernames do come up with search result pages adding to the importance of owning your identity.
The risk to your reputation that you run when somebody does register your username is potentially huge. There is no legislation (which I am aware of) that addresses these micro level identity-squatters. It could get to a point where people/companies have to pay for their usernames ala the late 1990’s domain name deals.
Once you have acquired the usernames you will need to decide how, if at all, you use the account. While I don’t like the fact that accounts may sit empty in the short-term, it is advisable that you secure your ID as soon as possible.
What are you waiting for? Go claim your identity!

I have come up with a couple of options that allow me to keep tabs of what people are saying and staying engaged when I cannot be actively watching and listening.
Subscribe via RSS
This is my favorite at the moment. At the bottom of each user’s page on Twitter have a small box that looks like this . That link is an RSS feed of the last things that person has said. I added it to my Google Reader in a category called Twitter Faves and it allows me to read them at any time. Using RSS in Google Reader also lets me search through them over time.

Use an application
Personally I use twhirl as my application of choice. I keep it open during the day and turn off the new Tweet notifications. When I have time I scroll through it and catch up. Twhirl also lets you do some cool filtering. You can filter by keyword or user as well as view Tweets by replies, direct messages, friends and followers. It also lets you search through the messages as needed. At the bottom of the window it shows if you have any replies or direct messages in the queue.
Use a web service
There are a host of new services such as Quotably that will allow you to track conversations by user and show you how they evolve over time. Keep in mind this is limited by the way that Twitter is set up (no threading, no groups, etc.) so it is of marginal value. You can also use a service like FriendFeed to keep track of what your friends are doing. Twitter is just one subset of information that FriendFeed tracks.

Services that consolidate and add value have a bright future in the conversation economy. There is a lot of opportunity out there to listen to, track the trajectory of and help people engage in conversations.
How do you listen? Do you accept the fact that people are talking and you can’t listen? Do you use something that is not on this list?

Yesterday on my blog I wrote about marketers who know the price for interruption and pay it anyway. Another problem that dovetails with interruption based advertising (and is equally frustrating to web users) is ads that get moved over from TV to the web. You’ve all seen this happen. You go to a site, click to the content you’re interested in and viola! A 30 second spot stands between you and your content.
At this point, according to the study I referenced in my post, most people jump out of the content. A small, but very passionate, percentage of those people actually abandon the entire site at this point. Tell me how this is effective.
I don’t know about you, but waiting for content while using the web is an extremely frustrating experience. The days of dialup are not far behind us when insufferable wait times were par for the course. Today, however, fiber optic connections and other broadband options make waiting a thing of the past. Unless, that is, you’re looking to watch a video online. If you’re looking for video, you are at the mercy of the content provider. Some “get” this and either exclude pre- and mid-roll ads altogether or they surround the video with a promotional “skin”.
30 seconds is just TOO LONG! Please let it die. It seems like an eternity to have to wait for what I want to see. 15 seconds isn’t much better. These formats were designed long ago and purpose-built to fill gaps in TV programming to make 20 minutes of content add up to an even 30 minute show. The web is different now. Imagine if Tivo and the television had arrived at the same time. Do you think our viewing experience would be the same as it is today? Would ads run through nearly 10 minutes of programming time?
I accept that some interruption is still going to happen. I’m a realist though I am cautiously optimistic that marketers will begin to see the light of day here. Site publishers are going to offer the format because marketers will pay for it. Marketers will buy it because it’s offered. But, given the numbers, don’t be a lazy marketer.
Challenge your team to develop your core message in three seconds. This is your equivalent of the elevator pitch. If you can’t convey your message in three seconds, you should probably not be advertising in web video as you’re probably doing more harm than good. There is plenty of TV inventory available to tell your story at length (that’s not very effective either though).
So what do you think of my premise? Will marketers listen? Can you say what you need to say in three seconds?

Clearly this is a trademark violation, but just look at the reach that this single application is having. There has to be a balance between legal and marketing in order to thrive in new media. Personally, I never really thought about Scrabble until I saw the flood of invites and blog posts and messages on Twitter about this little applicaiton. Personally I don’t own the real world game, but I know people who did buy it after this Facebook app reinvigorated their passion for it.

If I were in Mattel’s marketing department here is what my train of thinking would be here:

1. Somebody please kick the legal department out of the room. Thanks, now let’s continue.
2. Wow! These guys built an awesome application around our brand
3. We NEED to talk to them and buy this application ASAP
4. We NEED to hire these guys (or at least retain them) to do updates and possibly roll this out to other networks (Bebo, MySpace, etc.)
5. Seriously guys, keep those lawyers out of here! Just tell them somebody in accounting is using the wrong Pantone color in the logo again.
6. If we can’t buy it, we at least need to sponsor/co-present it as *the* official Scrabble game on Facebook
7. If none of those options work we need to congratulate those guys publicly for their efforts and encourage people to join in
8. I wonder why we didn’t think of this.

I think way too much of the marketing decision making is done by zealous, old-school, out-of-touch marketers or the legal department. I’ve personally run into legal departments that have the marketing group so fearful that the lawyers start making branding/positioning decisions for the company. That’s a very scary idea in my mind.

Any marketer out there should be looking at all of the options inside social networks like this. Look at these four actions steps to get the most value:

1. Creation: build the application, group, etc. that fits your business goals and adds value to your customers.
2. Acquisition: If you’re late to the party you should look at what is out there and set some acquisition targets. Look for those people adding the most value even if they don’t have the most traction.
3. Collaboration: If you can’t/won’t build it and somebody else has, look for ways to collaborate with them. Support them in ways that bring value to the users.

Companies have to defend their brands from nefarious use. That’s a given. But the law isn’t keeping up with the times and the lawyers have no choice but to fight. As Shel Holtz said, “blame the law, not the lawyers”. Marketing departments and legal departments need to get on the same page going forward in this new world of marketing and customer involvement.

Have you seen any other examples of marketers making snap judgements and persecuting their biggest fans? Social media is about supporting evangelists, not crushing them in a public display of force.