The lack of understanding, overuse, and serial abuse of the word “brand.”

Mr. McKenna: I spend a lot of my time meeting with startups, and it usually takes three or four long meetings just to explain what marketing is all about. They start out with a fundamental question — should we be advertising more? — and they use the word “brand” very loosely.

I always say don’t use that word, because brands are built. They don’t just exist because you run an ad or because you create a nifty logo. The brand comes from the consumer’s view. How do you build innovation into your product? How do you design the product in a way so that it sells itself?

Like any word endlessly repeated, the “brand” buzzword has begun to lose all meaning.

In fact, my first act with clients is often to pull them back from the lip of the branding abyss — especially those who have been told a couple of social media accounts, a consistent logo color, a vague, “fuzzy” approach to marketing and hours of online time are all that’s needed to define a “brand.”

It simply isn’t true.

From a marketing perspective, consistent branding is wonderful stuff and worth a little effort, but outside of the basics (define a message and be consistent about it), small organizations typically can’t afford to get too devoted to it.

More importantly, a great brand is an outgrowth of great products or services. Just ask San Francisco ad guy and author Bob Hoffman:

Where I diverge from most of my colleagues is in how you build a brand. In most cases I believe the best way to build a brand is with convincing product advertising, not “branding.”

To me, a strong brand is a by-product. It comes from doing other things well.

Which sounds about right to me.

Especially in the context of small and medium-sized organizations. You don’t have time to hold one-sided “brand conversaionts.” You’ve got products to build, designs to improve and goods to sell. Maybe a distribution channel or two to manage. And some customer service issues to fix.

And all the other projects that will assert a far bigger effect on your brand than the color of your logo or the time spent on Facebook.

In an age when you’re facing literally thousands of media channels, it’s important to focus on those that deliver real results — and to stop wasting time on ineffective channels that distract you from your other, more-critical “brand building” job.

In simple terms, make sure you’re delivering a clear message, your marketing is effective, and you’re differentiating yourself.

And that you’re creating, selling and servicing great products.

Market smart, Tom Chandler.

Which is why so many traditional marketers regard social network numbers with some suspicion; they aren’t verified, and those generating the numbers (Facebook, Twitter, etc) have a vested interest in inflating them.

Turns out the go-slow folks may have been right (from ZDNet):

The numbers of users reported by Facebook, Twitter, Google, and many other sites, are closely watched. They reveal trends in adoption and they are one of the few public metrics available to analysts trying to assign value to companies preparing an initial public offering.

But how accurate are these numbers?

In some anecdotal cases, the number of users, active and actual, could be as small as one-third. And nearly one-half of user accounts could be fake or contain no user profiles.

…

How large is this problem of fake and empty user profiles?

Here is an analysis performed by Kevin Kelly, a former editor of Wired magazine and a book author, on 560,000 people that have him in their G+ “circles.”

Where did these half million people come from? And who are they?

With the help of my research assistant Camille Cloutier, we randomly sampled my great circle…

Conclusion: Most of the half million people following me on Google+ are ciphers. They have signed up, but have not made a single public post, or posted their own image or a profile, or made a comment.

…

He and his assistant discovered that only 30% published anything on G+ and only 6% were “outright spammers.” But the largest group he classed as,

Ghosts. 36% had not even filled out a profile.

Mr Kelly pointed to a study by two journalists at Popular Mechanics that only 25% of their Twitter followers were real, and 49% were fake or spam.

I’ve long suspected social media — despite all the promises of tailored audiences and covert data collection — required a mass-marketing mindset. Marketing in social media channels often has an untargeted feel, and the value of some of the commonly counted outcomes (likes, etc) are hard to measure.

The commercial value of social media isn’t in doubt, but in terms of raw marketing power — and in the experiences reported to me by clients — its short-term potential is probably overblown.

Social media ad clickthrough rates remain dismal, and my small business clients report far better conversion rates from email than social media (which is why I suggest they convert social media contacts into email — a better marketing asset — whenever possible).

There are probably a host of reasons for the above, but one is likely the fact that better than half the accounts being marketed at don’t reflect active members.

My Take

I’ve witnessed new media “experts” talking local businesses into abandoning their traditional marketing channels in favor of daily social media work, and in at least two of the cases, the results were disastrous.

For many, the Return on Invesment (ROI) of social media channels has been uncertain, especially once you consider the opportunity costs of the time investment.

Some clients — especially those making timely offers to local audiences — are seeing good results from social media, but others are pulling back and focusing on channels that continue to produce (blogging, email, cold calling, etc).

Are overblown social media numbers one reason the marketing ROI of social media remains low for small and medium-sized businesses?

Probably. There are other factors, and I’ll look at those in an upcoming article.

Market smart, Tom Chandler.

It’s been pronounced “dead” a half-dozen times since spam almost killed it for real in the mid-90s, and today you’ll find it trampled underfoot by hordes of inexperienced marketers eager for the Next Big Thing.

For businesses — even small ones — that’s a shame.

One longtime small business client knew their email program made the phones ring, but didn’t know the extent until we spent a year measuring their results — and discovered their four quarterly emails accounted for better than 40% of their annual revenue. (They’ve since gone monthly.)

Email refuses to die, and for good reason

In fact, email might just be the single most effective, highest-ROI online marketing channel for businesses and nonprofits alike.

When the recession landed on the economy, large marketers cut advertising and promotion budgets to the bone — yet spending on email marketing (alone among the traditional marketing channels) actually increased.

Clearly, experienced marketers recognize the ROI of email programs, especially once you integrate it with emerging social media channels like Google+, Facebook, Twitter and others (the channels that “killed” it the last time it died).

Frankly, it’s a natural fit. Here are three reasons why:

Email’s On Demand; Social Is a Stream

Email sits in that inbox until someone reads or deletes it; social media is a stream, and notices are easy to miss.

The two channels balance each other beautifully. And our friendly, versatile email is wholly capable of driving traffic to your social media channels, which isn’t exactly true in reverse.

Email Addresses Are More Valuable Than “Likes”

A customer’s email address is almost certainly more valuable than a Facebook “Like” or Twitter follow; pushing a “Like” button is a simple act, and according to this study, doesn’t signify much in terms of brand loyalty.

Plus, if the social media channel fades or the customer stops visiting, their social media contact has little value.

And should you leave that social media platform, all those hard-won customer contacts don’t go with you — the price you pay for participating in social media, which is essentially a series of walled gardens.

By contrast, a customer’s email address is yours until orphaned or unsubscribed.

Email Offers More Scope for Message Delivery

Simply put, emails can deliver a prettier and more complete messages than most social media channels, and that’s a real advantage to email marketers, especially if they’re lucky enough to sell products featuring high visual values.

It’s Not All Roses

Despite a host of new tools designed to make it easier, good email programs can be time-consuming — a real problem in smaller organizations which lack a dedicated marketing grunt.

And while many focus on the difficulties of generating content and crafting the email, that’s really on half the story.

To be effective, you need to build your email list.

Pretty much all the time.

And a lot of small organizations can’t (or won’t) bother.

That’s one reason why so many of the new online marketing consultants can’t or won’t talk about email; it’s not as easy as Facebook. (The other reason is most of them don’t know anything about email, which is not something you admit to a client.)

My Recommendations

I push my more sophisticated clients towards MailChimp; they offer a free account for lists under 2000 names, which means a client can kick the tires on an email program without the pressure of a monthly charge bearing down.

MailChimp is also relatively easy to use (it’s not the easiest, but it is the most fun), and offers excellent social media integration.

They’re always innovating new gadgets, a personal favorite being their OnStage system, which hosts prospective email campaigns online so any number of people (at least those with the right link and password) can leave comments right on the design.

(That’s the kind of timesaver that makes email people cry.)

There’s still a learning curve involved, and for those needing a little less power, I’m suggest TinyLetter, which makes sending simple bulk emails almost as easy as sending a note to your Aunt.

MailChimp recently bought TinyLetter and are continuing it as a free service, and I can’t think of a better way to introduce my less-practiced clients to the wonders (and high ROI) of email marketing.

Email isn’t dead, and certainly hasn’t been killed by social media.

It’s just sitting in the corner and quietly making money — for those who know its secrets.

Market smart, Tom Chandler.

It’s not as if I ignore it; it’s just that urging clients to invest large amounts of time in media platforms they don’t own or control raises a few red flags.

Or at least it should. There are plenty of opportunities and just as many potholes; maximizing the former and avoiding the latter should be your goal.

So what should you avoid?

You’re Not The Customer, You’re The Product

Too many marketers have simply handed themselves over to proprietary social media platforms, ceding control to platforms that are trying very, very hard to monetize themselves.

Wordyard’s Scott Rosenberg touches on this when he speaks to the dangers journalists face when indulging an over-reliance on Facebook (to the detriment of their organization’s own website):

Here’s where my uneasiness comes from: Today Facebook is a private company that is almost certainly going to sell stock to the public before long. It will have quarterly earnings reports to make and pressure to deliver to investors. It is run by almost impossibly young people who have never had to deal with any business condition other than hockey-stick-curve growth. For the moment it appears to be trying hard to operate as a neutral and open public platform; its constant tinkering and rethinking of the design and functionality of its services can be maddening, but so far have tended to be driven by a serve-the-user impulse.

That won’t last forever. There are plenty of people waiting to cash in on Facebook’s success, and more in the wings, and they will expect the company to fulfill its inevitable destiny — and “monetize” the hell out of all the relationship-building we’re doing on its pages.

This is the landscape onto which today’s journalists are blithely dancing. I understand why they’re doing it, but I wish the larger companies and institutions would think a little harder about the future.

This is aimed at journalists, but it’s also true for organizations.

What happens when Facebook’s attempts to monetize come into direct conflict with your organization’s aims?

What happens when you invest a sizable portion of your marketing budget (time and money) into Facebook, then watch that investment devalue once Facebook changes the way it operates, or — like prior “must have” social media channels MySpace, Second Life, Friendster, etc — it simply fades from view.

(Those who say it can’t happen lack a basic appreciation of social media history.)

Unlike an email list, you don’t own those 10,000 “Likes” or the platform they’re visiting, so you’re  at the mercy of Facebook (or Twitter, or Bebo, or…).

And all that content sweat equity?

It will be worth very little. (What’s a Second Life avatar worth these days?)

In the end, if you’re not paying for a social media service, then you — and your freely provided content — are the product being sold.

Which forces us to ask a difficult question: is all that social media time and effort enriching your organization, or simply making Facebook richer?

Many of my clients can’t give me an answer to that question.

How Not To Get Burned

As a consultant, I offer my clients a few social media marketing pointers:

• Transform “uncontrolled” social media assets into something more tangible for your organization (like opt-in email addresses)
• Drive traffic from social media to your site rather than vice versa (several clients were driving traffic from their site to Facebook — a manifestly bad idea)
• Whenever possible, leverage content across multiple media channels
• Automate as much of the work as is possible (new tools make it very simple)
• Measure social media impacts on revenues (don’t assume that investing time in Facebook automatically pays dividends, especially when considering opportunity costs to other channels like email)
• Recognize that social media is registering all the signs of a bubble; those who ignore this may wind up on the wet end when it pops

Social media isn’t the devil, nor is it online marketing’s silver bullet.

It can produce for your organization, but don’t believe all the hype — or plow blindly ahead lacking any hint of a return.

These include aspects of social media like employee oversharing, the need to Feed the Monster, and an increased risk of malware and spam attacks (the new social disease?).

If that conversation doesn’t occur among those hyping social media, well, no one’s surprised.

When it doesn’t happen between consultant and client, it’s just a bad day for everyone.

Take, for example, the increased risk of malware.

From the Good Morning Silicon Valley site:

More businesses may be incorporating social networking into their internal and external communications, but that doesn’t mean the cranky guys back in the systems room are happy about it. A new report and survey of 500 companies by security outfit Sophos found a 70 percent increase last year in the number of firms reporting spam or malware attacks via social networks. Almost three quarters of the companies surveyed believed their employees’ behavior on social networking sites endangered security, and 61 percent named Facebook as their biggest worry among the social sites.

Weigh Benefits, Costs – And Dangers

Obviously, every media channel has its pluses and minuses, and they need to be weighed against the potential benefits.

In other words, “because it’s cool and everybody’s doing it” are not powerful business cases for organizational use of social media. (Engagement, sales, customer service and related concepts are good reasons for moving into social media.)

That most businesses and nonprofits will eventually use social media is a given; that they’re mindful of the downfalls is critical.

Facebook is hardly a cesspool of malware, but virus attacks through the social network have become more common. Are you prepared?

Oversharing Can Hurt You

Beyond the malware dangers, social media raises questions of employee involvement.

Many social media consultants are quick to call for transparency and unfettered employee access to media channels, but frankly, some employees shouldn’t be allowed near a Twitter client.

Years ago, I worked with a vendor who was given direct access to my client on a difficult project. To my horror, that vendor promptly got into an email flame war with my key contact.

It wasn’t a mild flame war, and yes, I made amends, but (understandably) I ultimately lost the client.

In all the years I worked with that vendor I never saw it coming; they’d been an excellent partner right up until that moment.

And while this occurred in pre-social media (remember those days), it still applies as a cautionary tale.

Finding the Best Fit Means Weighing All Aspects

The moral, of course, is that you can’t simply hand each employee a twitter account – nor should you.

Every media channel has its strengths or weaknesses. The hard part is figuring out which fit best – and if (and when) you should leverage them.

Stay thoughtful, Tom Chandler.