Here’s a couple of thoughts as we head into the New Year.

1. Talking with David Sweeney, a Channel Signal Analyst, and he brought up a great point. Now we hear that the sponsors of Tiger Woods have lost over 12 billion in collective stock value since Tiger’s trysts were uncovered. We wonder what would have happened if that money had been invested in new media?
What if they would have collected a powerful army of Influencers out there every day delivering messages, content and having conversations about Accenture, AT&T, Nike, Buick, etc.

Thousands of pieces of content would have been circulating. And they would have been retweeted and virally turned into millions of impressions.

Instead, what we have is the implosion of one personality that all of these sponsors banked on.

Man, do I long for the future. Maybe in 2010.

2. The Boomerang Effect. (Devaki Murch’s phrase). This means that every message that is placed into the marketplace should come back to the company in some form…either positive or negative.

This input would keep that message fresh, would allow it to morph and be adopted by different groups. That message would be repurposed, perhaps a hundred times.

But here’s the problem in 2009. Companies are geared to broadcast. They throw these messages out into the ocean and have no real way to gauge the response.

Man, do I long for the future.

One where companies communicate by delivering content …and then listening. And then engaging.

And a future where human-beings aren’t looking for gods here on earth. Because…they just aren’t here.

Peace.

A Christmas card and tribute to our Aunt, Haleloke.

We all want to believe that there are people out there that are superhuman. Actors and actresses that are flawless. Athletes that amaze and are amazing. Business people who have the midas touch. We have a craving to believe that these people are special. Above the fray. And their pr machines work tirelessly to pump out messaging that builds that perception.

And then we have the brands. They do the same thing. They want us to believe,  and many of us do, that their leadership is flawless, their brand is gold-platted and the products are untouchable. And again, marketing and communications experts are spinning it to make us believe the above descriptions.

Both celebrities and brands broadcast messaging that is consistent with deity-building. And that’s why Tiger Woods is on the cover of this week’s Newsweek. He and his team built an image of perfection. And then his humanity peaked through the curtain with a late night car wreck. And then more of the curtain came open with refusing to talk with police. And then more of the curtain with domestic troubles. And then the women. And now Newsweek. Big magazine covering big stories.

I believe the Tiger Woods saga will prove to be the beginning of when the business world “gets” that broadcasting messages without listening for the response is a very slippery slope. Building perfection will not work. And…one way engagement will not work anymore.

I believe this will be the case study that  finally convinces the business world, the celebrities and the athletes to stop talking to themselves and start listening to: 1. who buys the products 2. who buys the movie tickets, and 3. who pays for the seats at the Forum.

Brands in the Outdoor Industry have had it great for over two decades. Consumers love many of these brands. Ski in them, bike in them, paddle in them, run and hike in them. Wear the stuff and look cool at cocktail parties. And they have talked incessantly about their favorite brands. Consumers are reviewing product, tweeting, blogging and having conversations over coffee about their new outdoor stuff.

The brands have been tone deaf to the these conversations. They continue to  broadcast messages from the control tower.

We have our examples where the great unwashed have stormed the Bastille. BPA, Sigg, South Butt…and there will be more.

And there will be many more if brands continue to broadcast like robots and not engage.

When I was ten years old my Grandfather ,Paul Keck, introduced me to famous comedian Joe E. Brown. We were in the elevator and my Grandfather said, “Mr. Brown, I would like you to meet my grandson, Paul Kirwin.” He shook my hand, asked all about me, the elevator door opened, he smiled, and said it was good to meet us both. I felt like a million bucks. And so did Grandpa.

Now, that’s humanity.

I once saw Bob Hope eating a hamburger at the In-N-Out Burger in LA. He had another older gentleman with them that I think was his driver. Several average Joes came up to his table to say hello. He greeted everyone and everyone went away smiling.

Thanks for the memories Bob. And tens of millions would agree with that phrase.

He knew who he was.

A comedian who worked hard and got lucky.

He was one of us.

Brands should talk and listen like they are one of us.

It will serve them well.

It’s 3 AM and Channel Signal is in the middle of a social media crisis for a customer. This customer wants to learn of every single conversation going on about the issue and what everyone is saying.

Here’s the problem with that approach. It’s like going to a cocktail party and deciding that you want to listen to every conversation on that topic at the party. Some of the conversations will be silly. Some will have the facts wrong. Some will even have the names wrong. Some will be blowhards. Some will have had too much to drink.

And once you get into these conversations you find a doorway to get you out. “Hey, good talking to you. I’m going to grab another beer.”

The same with brands. They should listen politely and record the conversations surrounding an event. But don’t engage. It’s misplaced time and money.

Here’s why. Let’s say  the social media mavens inside a company report to senior management that there were: “10,000 conversations about the issue. 7,000 were negative. 1,000 were positive. And 2,000 were neutral. Here are some examples of the negatives. And some examples of the positives. And we engaged in conversations on our Facebook page and on Twitter.”

And, if a member of senior management, I would ask, ” Are we turning opinion to our favor?”

And the real answer would be…”we don’t know.”

Recording the buzz is a good thing, and should be measured.  Turning the buzz into a positive, or at least a neutral,  is harder to accomplish.

When an issue comes up in social media brands must know the Influencers. And that is accomplished with sustained concentrated listening in specific markets… over a period of time.

Simply put, brands must earn Influencers. How? By having an active social media policy in place before an issue arises. Do Sweep Searches of a vertical. Listen for the Influencers. Identify them by their traffic and the quality of their content.  Follow them. And then engage them honestly. Supply good content. And build the relationship.

Then when an issue appears, a brand can immediately consult its list of Influencers and listen. Are they picking up the issue? Should the brand introduce the issue to them and tell its side of the story first?  Should the brand wait to see if the issue goes away.

Influencers can powerfully help implement strategy.

The goal of social media engagement should be sustained positive engagement with Influencers. They are a brand’s third party messengers who gather large crowds and speak with authenticity.

A company making 100 million dollars in revenue has a lot of searching to do if it wants to capture most mentions of it on the Internet. Metaphorically, let’s call it 100 miles of coastline to search. So, why do most companies do spot searches on the ten miles of coastline adjacent to their headquarters instead of sweep searching all 100 miles of coastline?

First, some definitions. Sweep search pertains to a wide search of the Internet for all blogs and tweets mentioning the company. A spot search is when a company does a specific search with key words plugged in. For example, ["Merrell Oyster Race"]. This search is for all mentions of Merrell’s specific race series.

Most companies or their sub-contractors believe that it is the most efficient use of time to spot search, which means they search only when a topic comes up or an event launched.  It’s also more convenient.

Sweep searches require culling through as many as 500 posts a day. It is time consuming. And hard work. But here’s why brands should do it…

What happens when a company misses several posts and those posts create momentum…becoming an issue?  Well, those responsible for social media monitoring rapidly move to do a spot search and find all relevant posts of this new issue.

May be too late. Case in point: Motrin management went home on Friday believing it had released a great new tv ad about the need for Mom’s carrying babies to consider Motrin when backs or necks get sore. On Monday, Motrin was greeted by a negative firestorm about that television ad.

A sweep search on Friday with the tag [Motrin] would have picked up the beginnings of the problem. ” Ms. Vice President of Marketing, we are picking up negative comments about Motrin and it appears to be sponsored by the tv ad. And it is building.”

You see consumers don’t always put the right words into their tweets. So, they don’t always write..”Am really angry with the Motrin television ad that has just aired.” They write…”really angry with Motrin. How could they?’

So by Monday Motrin was already on its heels..and recovering only when they pulled the ad, losing millions.

Sweep searches pick up all potential problems early…which is when a company needs to react. Miss a potential problem and it could explode into an issue over night.

And hello crisis management.