Mediameme

Well, hello there! We’re ANOTHER CLUELESS MEDIA COMPANY. You may already know us and even if you don’t, we think you’ll enjoy a peek at our YouTube videos. So, we sent you the enclosed DVD for your viewing pleasure. We pulled a few of our favorites, where we talk about things such as alligators, the environment and, ok, a little about ourselves. Enjoy!

Seriously? Ok, first –who the heck sends a DVD through the MAIL of their YouTube work? Were they afraid I wouldn’t have access to the WORLD WIDE web? I mean, I work at an interactive agency for goodness’ sake!

The clueless media company spent a pretty penny on the snazzy tin case and yet the cover note (copy referenced above) was pasted onto red construction paper that was hand cut on three sides and machine cut on the fourth. Frankly my Kindergartener could have done a better art job.

Second, the copy stinks. I don’t really care about you, or alligators or what you think about the environment. And I’ve yet to see a YouTube video that I ‘enjoy’. Want to know what your business can do for me. Preferably in a minute or less. Save the other stuff for your spouse, your children and your mother.

Finally, don’t mix your channels. If someone calls you, do you email them back? Well, don’t do it with your marketing either. Taking videos that you’ve posed on YouTube and now showing them as glorified screen grabs seems bizarre at best and more than a little self-serving/attention-seeking.

I’m not naming this firm because, clearly, they are struggling enough as it is. But honestly, if you are an entrepreneur and even *think* that something like this would be a good idea, please PLEASE think again. As for the clueless media company, the survival of the fittest applies to more than species.

I was just re-reading about Bear Stearns remarkable collapse with today’s indictment of two managers, Matthew Tannin and Ralph Cioffi, who quite frankly should have known much better than to share private thoughts via email. Because, apparently unlike their employer, email is forever. Think twice before you create any digital communication and, if you wouldn’t want a Federal judge listening to its contents, you probably should send/post/publish it.

What is astonishing to me, though, is not so much the stupidity of these two managers, but rather the extraordinary speed of Bear Stearn’s collapse. Here was an 85-year old, independent investment bank with assets in excess of $400 billion, paying their counterparties, executing trades and, according to their CEO at least, making money.

Until a Tuesday in mid-March when an email was issued from another Wall St institution, Goldman Sachs, to its hedge fund clients that called into question Bear Stearns’ liquidity. There weren’t any specifics or facts offered to make such a stunning accusation, but, apparently, it was enough that Goldman was asking the question. Within days, not weeks, not months, but from Tuesday when the email was sent to Friday when Bear Stearns had secured $30 billion in funding from JPMorganChase and the US Government, their stock went into freefall. Game over.

Companies in sectors like financial services, technology, even media have always been about the confidence they publicly present. But once the confidence evaporates, so too does the business. Business is a competitive sport and certainly not for the faint of heart.

I love this blogopticon from Vanity Fair.

What I don’t get; however, is the quadrant rankings. How can TMZ be ‘scurrilous news’ and the Huffington Post be leaning heavily towards opinion when it is informed by some of the biggest insiders in DC…who make the news, yet scottsblog, which is arguably ALL opinion, skews towards the optimal position as “earnest news”.

So what is your opinion? And does that become ironic if you answer what is clearly designed as a conversation starter among their self-described literati community?

What do you define as a news source? Whose opinions matter to you? Do those authority figures change depending on the topic?

In other words, say you had an Uncle who was a former Chief of Staff for a recently retired Senator — would you view him as being more or less of an authority about the US Navy Credit Union than your daughter’s best friend’s mom who just loves to hear herself talk and has an opinion about every topic. What about if the topic moved from Navy Federal Credit to the boy abandoned at Walmart? Did the authority just shift? Why or why not?

You need to put the context around social media with regard to the authority the site, the blogger or the experience provides the user — especially if you are trying to position your brand. Authority matters in this space but, like everything else that the web touches, it is a very narrow swath of influence.

So I am at Trader Joe’s, deciding which line to stand in so I can pay for my groceries. There are only two cashiers available, one is taking the items out of the cart, scanning and bagging in a fluid motion. The customer is waiting for the process to be completed so she can pay. The other cashier has one customer bagging and her husband/ boyfriend/ partner/ whatever is removing the items from the cart and placing them on the counter for the cashier to scan. Which line would you pick?

I picked the cashier who understood service. After taking a good hour wheeling around their frightful little store, bagging my groceries should not be an optional experience after I’ve decided to spend $250 or so on my weekly food shop. Plus, in the minute it took for me to assess the situation, the uber-competent cashier finished off 3 bags while the team of 3 were arguing amongst themselves about whether their tomatoes were ‘cherry’ or ‘grape’ and bagging nothing. In fact they had basically ground to a halt.

This twilight zone moment also served as an illustration about companies engaging in social media. Some companies do a nice job of constructing a robust, flexible architecture for customers and evangelists to exchange their thoughts, opinions, photos, videos, reviews, etc in order to democratize access to the brand. There is a community manager who seems to know what’s going on and is responsible for not just knowing the rules, but facilitating the experience.

Other companies set up experiments in isolation: a MySpace page or a Facebook group or, worse, a social network on their brand web site, expecting the old adage “if you build it, they will come” to miraculously apply. And sadly, a few loyalists may visit…and then they disappear quicker than Hitler took Poland. It simply doesn’t occur to these companies that they might actually have to do more heavy lifting in terms of developing a two-way conversation and investing more than they expect (e.g. free) to build and support the social media infrastructure correctly so it actually facilitates the brand experience.

And yet, just like my experience at Trader Joe’s, any visitor can immediately see which ‘system’ works better — which brand they would rather associate with and become part of their community.

Think social media can’t make a difference to a small business? Consider Max Motors, a new and used car dealership in Butler, MO. With their recent Guns & Gas promotion, this small dealership is now claiming:

“We’re fast becoming the Premier Used Car Dealer on the Internet. All of this from a small town south of Kansas City. We’re also a new car dealer that is changing the way people shop for cars online. Wether you’re looking for a new car or a used car, you’ve found the right Car Dealer. We make it easy to get a car loan, find the right car and get you on the road quickly and easily… It doesn’t matter if you’re in Kansas or Missouri, Butler or Warrensburg, you can be in Alaska and still buy from Max Motors and find out how we’ve put this sleepy little town on the map. We carry new Ford, Chevrolet, Buick, Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Buick, and Cadillacs plus a wide range of used and pre-owned automobiles. Max Motors, more than just a new car dealership.”

Instead of going down *just* the traditional route of local newspaper and oversized signage, they added a blog, tagged posts on automotive forums and a few other social media tools and were soon covered by the local tv station, NBC and the world (courtesy of the BBC).

Even though their web site would make Jakob Nielsen (and most art directors) scream with horror, at the end of the day Max Motors and every other small business in America are in business in order to make money, not win awards or ‘enhance the user experience’.

A car dealer need interested consumers in market for a new car. And Max Motors has stumbled upon what motivates their core audience: Gas and guns.

Lucky hicks or marketing geniuses?

What do Joseph Jaffe, Greg Verdino, Chris Brogan, Geoff Livingston and Aaron Strout all have in common aside from being regarded as social media thought leaders? They are generously supporting a good cause by donating consulting time to help raise money for Team in Training, the fundraising arm of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society.

And at least two of them are victims of their own advice.

While this is clearly done for the best intentions, each one of them has failed to perform the basic due diligence any well-regarded social media expert would recommend to clients in selecting a social media partner. In this case the auctioner is not following the specific, prescribed eBay procedure for Charity auctions, which could not only reduce the amount of money she is hoping to raise, but, as eBay is one of the largest social media sites on the planet that everyone (including my 73-year old mother) has visited, it makes the social media ‘experts’ sound like hypocrites.

As an established brand, would you trust your reputation to someone who cannot demonstrate basic expertise and experience?

What follows is in NO WAY intended as a slight upon any of the participants as several are my friends IRL. I am blogging about this incident because it serves to illustrate how important it is to ask questions before leaping into any project involving Web 2.0 tools. The importance of selecting the right vendor, including what to look for and the questions to ask has been commented on by Joseph and Greg. Whilst this situation might seem different, the issues and consequences are the same. By trusting their personal ‘brands’ to a third party in this way, they potentially expose themselves to unforeseen or negative outcomes due to their partner’s inexperience and clear lack of familiarity with the charity auctions on eBay, the eBay community, its rules of engagement and enforcement of those rules.

So please consider this post a friendly poke from a VERY experienced eBayer with more than 1000 auctions successfully transacted over the last 8 years. I’ve undertaken a substantial amount of charity fundraising for small to large organizations and I have learned the hard way that eBay enforces every one of their rules to the letter.

Let me explain. Every seller on eBay is required to read their Rules for Sellers. The auctioner’s inexperience with the social community of eBay is clearly identified by her lack of feedback “0″ as well as the eBay ‘newbie’ icon However, pleading ignorance is not an option. And if the ‘experts’ had done what they propose for clients, they might have realized this themselves. Here are the rules as laid out on eBay about Charity or Fundraising Listings

Charitable fundraising is a highly regulated area subject to numerous state and federal laws. eBay allows sellers to list items and collect proceeds (in whole or in part) on behalf of nonprofits either with eBay Giving Works (the dedicated program for charity listings on eBay) or without eBay Giving Works (as long as the listings meet our specific guidelines for charitable solicitations).

Violations of this policy may result in a range of actions, including:

• Listing cancellation
• Limits on account privileges
• Account suspension
• Forfeit of eBay fees on cancelled listings

Sounds rigid and scary. Most sellers with charity listings use the former route, which eBay seems to prefer, and they list through eBay’s Giving Works as eBay donates their fees as part of the deal (in this instance we are talking probably $100+, which would have been nice to donate to her fundraising cause instead of ‘donating’ to eBay as the auctioner is currently doing). She could have had all the listings cycle through her Donation Account on her Seller Page that would show current and past eBay Giving Works listings, pay donations directly to the charity and download tax receipts. Listing this way also ensures the non-profit is a 501(3)c or similar, which gives potential buyers peace of mind.

Because the auctioner is naively trying to use eBay to support her fundraising activities, she choose to list her auctions directly, a process subject to the following:

Sellers may only list items for charity without eBay Giving Works if they:

• Are soliciting on behalf of recognized tax-deductible charitable organizations (for example, 501(c)(3) status or equivalent with the IRS).
• Receive advance written consent for the solicitation from the benefiting nonprofit.

To verify you received permission, you must include a scanned copy of the consent in your listing. It must appear with the nonprofit’s letterhead, signed by an officer and include the nonprofit’s tax-deductibility status as well as your name or eBay user ID, dates of event/listings, and donation amount (percentage of the final sale price). It must be large enough to be easily legible, and it must appear as a picture rather than a link.

To her credit, she updated the auctions a few days later with this letter. I wonder if eBay pinged her that she was in violation of their policy? Regardless, if they canceled her auctions, she’s out the listing fees and she would have to pay again to have her auctions re-listed, depleting the potential fund-raising total.

This letter she posted is NOT signed by an officer nor does it include the nonprofit’s tax-deductability status. It also does not list the dates of the event or the donation amount — all this makes it appear “dodgy” to those with experience in this area. Every of her ‘social media guru’ auctions are directly violating eBay’s policy and are likely to be pulled — yes, eBay is that frighteningly diligent.

For those not experienced in this area, the impact of a charity auction being pulled on their perception of the participants is likely to be negative. And no, I haven’t said a word to eBay — just using my blog to poke my colleagues so they can fix the problem before it tarnishes their reputation because frankly, they should have known better.

With stats showing more than 60 million uniques per month, spending on average 2 hours per visit, Ebay IS arguably the poster child for engagement and social media. Social media thought leaders need to follow their own advice when experimenting with social media in which they themselves are not ‘expert’ or experienced and find someone who is a bona fide expert. To not follow their own counsel is at best slightly embarassing, but at worst could be damaging to their individual brands. It is my fervant wish that this situation only results in a few blushes but may act as valuable example to us all on the importance of following our own counsel.