It may be called "New Media", but the same old rules apply. The smart way in essence is to survey what your key customers think it important, focus on that, and measure the results.

Link to original article: http://griff.in/s

If you're beating your head against 21st century Luddites, you'll love this.

1. Our competitors don’t have a Facebook page.
2. Our customers don’t care about social media.
3. We need to control our message very closely and if we participate we will lose control.
4. I’m afraid of negative criticism.
5. I don’t think we should be doing anything groundbreaking. Let’s stick to what we know, print advertising and press releases.

The best argument was, however, omitted:

“It won’t generate revenue.”

Link to original article: http://griff.in/q

A bit of a long-shot, really, this one. At a time when many companies still have no idea who should be in charge of their website (is it marketing or IT?) the idea of appointing someone to be responsible for their Twitter account must seem far-fetched.

"We live in a digital age, and we have to make sure we engage with people," said a Cabinet Office spokeswoman.

A lot of companies, in my experience, have yet to fully grasp that point, which is of course to your advantage if you wish to exploit it. Twitter could be part of your social media mix too.

Link to original article: http://griff.in/j

They make a case for "Customer Confidence," but I think it would vary from company to company. It would start with engaging with your customers, then developing a relationship with them, and ultimately, true, you would build confidence. Their confidence in you means they don't have an imperative to find another supplier, and they're less susceptible to being swayed by your competitor's marketing to switch their allegiance. It also means, if engaged in social media, that you can fix customer relations problems.

Link to original article: http://griff.in/i

The subtitle to this interesting article "Your competitors know that Twitter, Linkedin, and the rest of the social media gang are a communication channel between you and your consumers. Do you?" pulls no punches and they mke a few interesting points.

Here's what I would say: Google your own company and see what comes up, then Google your competitors and see what comes up. Are you happy with what you see?

Link to original article: http://griff.in/h

There are still those who dismiss the potential impact of social media and refuse to consider how to use it for their businesses. It's impact can be very powerful indeed, as this story about a Guatemala lawyer and his YouTube video shows. Facebook is being used to organise widespread protests against his murder. It is very real; the Guatamala government cannot ignore it, and nor can anyone else.

Link to original article: http://griff.in/g

This is something finally coming true for me. Right from the earliest days of the web I was always taken with the idea of employees having their own profile pages, but any notion of that was soon stamped out by control-freakery. Now others are appreciating that "social networks" at work can help employees get to know each other, especially in geographically dispersed organisations, and people are always much more willing to help someone they know. This Business Week article gives a few pointers to keeping the momentum going.

Link to the original article: http://griff.in/f

With everyone getting in on the social media game, for social purposes as the name implies, a business might be tempted to think it isn't an area they need to be concerned with. Personally, I hate rules for the sake of rules, and we are over-regulated without question. But a little guidance for the benefit of employees warning them of the hidden pitfalls that can harm the company would be very sensible and need not be perceived by them as an intrusion into their private lives.

Link to original article: http://griff.in/9