For marketers, Web 2.0 offers a remarkable new opportunity to engage consumers.

If only they knew how to do it.

That’s where this article aims to help. We interviewed more than 30 executives and managers in both large and small organizations that are at the forefront of experimenting with Web 2.0 tools. From those conversations and further research, we identified a set of emerging principles for marketing.

But first, a more basic question: What is Web 2.0, anyway? Essentially, it encompasses the set of tools that allow people to build social and business connections, share information and collaborate on projects online. That includes blogs, wikis, social-networking sites and other online communities, and virtual worlds.

Millions of people have become familiar with these tools through sites like Facebook, Wikipedia and Second Life, or by writing their own blogs. And a growing number of marketers are using Web 2.0 tools to collaborate with consumers on product development, service enhancement and promotion. But most companies still don’t appear to be well versed in this area.

So here’s a look at the principles we arrived at — and how marketers can use them to get the best results.

Web 2.0 tools can be used to do what traditional advertising does: persuade consumers to buy a company’s products or services. An executive can write a blog, for instance, that regularly talks up the company’s goods. But that kind of approach misses the point of 2.0. Instead, companies should use these tools to get the consumers involved, inviting them to participate in marketing-related activities from product development to feedback to customer service.

How can you do that? A leading greeting-card and gift company that we spoke with is one of many that have set up an online community — a site where it can talk to consumers and the consumers can talk to each other. The company solicits opinions on various aspects of greeting-card design and on ideas for gifts and their pricing. It also asks the consumers to talk about their lifestyles and even upload photos of themselves, so that it can better understand its market.

A marketing manager at the company says that, as a way to obtain consumer feedback and ideas for product development, the online community is much faster and cheaper than the traditional focus groups and surveys used in the past. The conversations consumers have with each other, he adds, result in “some of the most interesting insights,” including gift ideas for specific occasions, such as a college graduation, and the prices consumers are willing to pay for different gifts.

Similarly, a large technology company uses several Web 2.0 tools to improve collaboration with both its business partners and consumers. Among other things, company employees have created wikis — Web sites that allow users to add, delete and edit content — to list answers to frequently asked questions about each product, and consumers have added significant contributions. For instance, within days of the release of a new piece of software by the company, consumers spotted a problem with it and posted a way for users to deal with it. They later proposed a way to fix the problem, which the company adopted. Having those solutions available so quickly showed customers that the company was on top of problems with its products.

Give consumers a reason to participate.

Consumers have to have some incentive to share their thoughts, opinions and experiences on a company Web site.

One lure is to make sure consumers can use the online community to network among themselves on topics of their own choosing. That way the site isn’t all about the company, it’s also about them. For instance, a toy company that created a community of hundreds of mothers to solicit their opinions and ideas on toys also enables them to write their own blogs on the site, a feature that many use to discuss family issues.

Other companies provide more-direct incentives: cash rewards or products, some of which are available only to members of the online community. Still others offer consumers peer recognition by awarding points each time they post comments, answer questions or contribute to a wiki entry. Such recognition not only encourages participation, but also has the benefit of allowing both the company and the other members of the community to identify experts on various topics.

Many companies told us that a moderator plays a critical role in keeping conversations going, highlighting information that’s important to a discussion and maintaining order. That’s important because consumers are likely to drift away if conversations peter out or if they feel that their voices are lost in a chaotic flood of comments. The moderator can also see to it that consumer input is seen and responded to by the right people within the company.

And, of course, it’s important to make a site as easy to use as possible. For instance, there should be clear, simple instructions for consumers to set up a blog or contribute to a wiki.

Listen to — and join — the conversation outside your site.

Consumers tend to trust one another’s opinions more than a company’s marketing pitch. And there is no shortage of opinions online.

The managers we interviewed accept that this type of content is here to stay and are aware of its potential impact — positive or negative — on consumers’ buying decisions. So they monitor relevant online conversations among consumers and, when appropriate, look for opportunities to inject themselves into a conversation or initiate a potential collaboration.

For example, a marketing manager of a leading consumer-electronics company monitors blogs immediately after a new-product launch in order to understand “how customers are actually reacting to the product.” Other managers keep an eye on sites like Digg.com and Del.icio.us that track the most popular topics on the Web, to see if there’s any buzz around their new products, and whether they should be adjusting, say, features or prices.

In one case, a company found a popular blogger who had spoken highly of the company’s brand. Just prior to launching a new product, the company sent the blogger a free sample, inviting him to review it with no strings attached. The end result: The blogger wrote a favorable review and generated a flood of comments. So the company got nearly free publicity and feedback.

Peter & Maria Hoey

Resist the temptation to sell, sell, sell.

Many marketers have been trained to bludgeon consumers with advertising — to sell, sell, sell anytime and anywhere consumers can be found. In an online community, it pays to resist that temptation.

When consumers are invited to participate in online communities, they expect marketers to listen and to consider their ideas. They don’t want to feel like they’re simply a captive audience for advertising, and if they do they’re likely to abandon the community.

The head of consumer research for a leading consumer-electronics organization created an online community of nearly 50,000 consumers to discuss product-development and marketing issues. One of the key principles of the community, she says, was “not to do anything about marketing, because we weren’t about selling; we were about conversing.”

In short order, community members not only identified what it was they were looking for in the company’s products, but also suggested innovations to satisfy those needs. The company quickly developed prototypes based on those suggestions, and got an enthusiastic response: Community members asked when they would be able to buy the products and if they would get the first opportunity to buy them. They didn’t have to be sold on anything.

Don’t control, let it go.

In an online community, every company needs to find an effective balance between trying to steer the conversation about its products and allowing the conversation to flow freely. In general, though, the managers we interviewed believe that companies are better off giving consumers the opportunity to say whatever is on their minds, positive or negative. Moderators can keep things running smoothly and coherently, but they shouldn’t always keep the conversation on a predetermined track. The more that consumers talk freely, the more a company can learn about how it can improve its products and its marketing.

One marketing executive recalled the first time she let an online community created for a client interact with very little control or moderation, resulting in an animated discussion about the look of the company’s product. The client, with great concern, asked. “Who told them [the consumers] they could do this, that they could go this far?” Of course, when this process resulted in totally new packaging that helped boost sales, the client was ecstatic.

As another executive of a company that creates online communities for clients told us: “You have to let the members drive. When community members feel controlled, told how to respond and how to act, the community shuts down.”

Find a ‘marketing technopologist.’

So who should direct a company’s forays into Web 2.0 marketing? A number of managers identified an ideal set of skills for an executive that go beyond those of a typical M.B.A. holder or tech expert. We coined the term marketing technopologist for a person who brings together strengths in marketing, technology and social interaction. A manager said, “I’d want to see someone with the usual M.B.A. consultant’s background, strong interest in psychology and sociology, and good social-networking skills throughout the organization.”

Foot soldiers need to be carefully selected as well. One large technology company weighs employees’ proven skills to choose writers for blogs that are read by consumers. The company has long used blogs internally to help employees discuss technical issues, products, and company and industry topics. When it decided to use blogs to raise its profile online, it recruited those who had shown the most skill at blogging within the company. The company currently has about 15 employees who blog publicly, mostly on technology trends, and is recruiting more the same way. Meanwhile, the bloggers plan to meet occasionally to share the lessons learned from their experiences.

Embrace experimentation.

One Web 2.0 strategy does not fit all, and sometimes the best way to find out what’s best for a given company is to try some things out and see what happens.

Blogs, wikis and online communities are among the tools that companies are most commonly using for marketing, but there are other ways to reach consumers. Some of the companies we talked with have gotten their feet wet in the online virtual world Second Life, where millions of users interact with each other through avatars. Companies can sell their goods and services and sponsor events in Second Life just as they do in the real world; one sponsored a contest for the best avatar.

Others are considering new ways to use more-familiar tools. For instance, many companies have long used instant messaging on their Web sites to allow shoppers to chat with customer-service representatives. One executive we spoke with said he would like to experiment with allowing consumers to chat with each other as they shop on his company’s site.

[via WSJ Small Business] By SALVATORE PARISE , PATRICIA J. GUINAN and BRUCE D. WEINBERG

Laid off in the recession and thinking of starting a business? Or just tired of working for someone else?

It’s hard to start a business alone. Aspiring entrepreneurs must tackle an onslaught of questions like what and where to sell, how to effectively market their product or service, how to structure their business — even whether going solo is the best option for them.

There’s no shortage of advice and resources for fledgling entrepreneurs. In fact, the biggest problem is figuring out whom to trust and what resources will be most useful. That involves scouting out what’s available and judging what is worth pursuing. Yes, it’s time-consuming. But one good piece of advice or personal connection can make or break your chance at success.

Here’s a look at some possible places for new entrepreneurs to turn.

Development Centers

Partially funded by the federal government, Small Business Development Centers provide free counseling and help on a full range of issues such as business planning, financing and site location. There are about 900 SBDCs, spread across all 50 states.

The centers employ full-time business counselors, typically former entrepreneurs or M.B.A. graduates, who are well-networked and meet one-on-one with entrepreneurs or direct them to other services and professionals that can help, says Don Wilson of the Association of Small Business Development Centers in Burke, Va.

“Sometimes the most valuable service we offer is telling someone their idea isn’t going to work,” he says.

Many SBDCs host courses, such as FastTrac, an entrepreneurship exploration and planning program developed by the Kauffman Foundation, an entrepreneurship research and advocacy organization. Some SBDCs partner with local business incubators that offer free and low-cost office space and resources.

To find the nearest SBDC, go to asbdc-us.org on the Web.

Score

Need a business mentor with very specific experience or expertise? You might try Score, a nonprofit group of volunteer business executives who counsel entrepreneurs; it’s loosely affiliated with the Small Business Administration.

There are about 11,000 Score volunteers nationwide and 389 offices. The volunteers mentor entrepreneurs long-term or just help with a specific question or need. People who don’t live near a Score chapter can pose questions to a counselor via email at Score.org.

A search tool on the homepage lets users find counselors in their geographic area or with a specific area of expertise. You can read detailed descriptions of the counselors’ professional backgrounds to pick one that suits your needs.

Campus Help

Universities are eager to give students real-world experience in a host of entrepreneurial exercises, including feasibility analysis, business planning and market research. They do so by providing free and low-cost help to local entrepreneurs.

For instance, law students at the University of San Diego advise local businesses pro bono on legal matters such as business incorporation and getting licenses and permits. For $500 to $1,500, student teams at St. Louis University will conduct a feasibility analysis or help write a business plan. Local entrepreneurs also can get their product or service ideas evaluated in the school’s Idea to Product Competition.

Call your local universities’ entrepreneurship programs or business schools, or check their Web sites, to see what services they offer local businesses.

Other Entrepreneurs

An often-overlooked resource for new entrepreneurs is other successful business owners in their fields. Someone looking to start a business should compile a list of the five “smartest” minds in the industry and try to meet with those people face-to-face, says Bo Fishback, vice president of entrepreneurship for the Kauffman Foundation.

“If you think you’ve figured out a place where you can leverage some great value, go to talk to people in the space,” he says. These entrepreneurs — assuming they’re willing to meet with you — can answer questions about the industry and what it’s like running such a business. “The best things that come out of this meeting are introductions to other people who might be interested in helping you,” Mr. Fishback adds. “It’s a very self-directed kind of school.”

Networking Groups

Starting a business can be a lonely experience — if you do it alone. Meeting other entrepreneurs who are in your town, or have similar experiences and problems, can be both therapeutic and educational.

Pretty much any city or small town in the U.S. has a Chamber of Commerce or other business group that hosts networking events, seminars and other resources for entrepreneurs. You also can find groups of business owners in your area on Web sites like MeetUp.com.

More and more business networking is actually taking place online. Though you might not form as close a relationship that way, you are more likely to find people in your industry to share experiences with.

Social-networking sites for start-ups include Sta.rtup.biz, StartupNation.com and Biznik.com. Other sites, such as MicroMentor.org, IdeaCrossing.org, PartnerUp.com and GoBigNetwork.com, can help match entrepreneurs with a business mentor, or even a potential investor.

[via WSJ Small Business] by Kelly Spors

In November, not two weeks after winning the election and still two months from becoming commander in chief, Barack Obama brought the government into the 21st century. Or at least that was what we were told when he released his first Web video address as president-elect. The clip, billed by some as a modern fireside chat, was embedded as a YouTube video on Change.gov, the incoming administration’s Web site. Sitting in a leather chair, framed slightly off center from his chest up, Obama delivered a three-minute talk on the economic crisis, vlog style.

The video quickly racked up hundreds of thousands of views, and within a few days hundreds of blogs were linking to it. Obama’s foray into viral video, the story went, heralded the beginning of a new era in government communication and transparency—”Franklin Roosevelt 2.0,” in the words of The Huffington Post. The Washington Post proclaimed the advent of the “YouTube presidency.”

1 million:
The number of views received by Obama’s first YouTube address as president-elect.

It wasn’t long, however, before savvy observers noted what was missing from this and other Obama videos: the chance for ordinary citizens to talk back. The campaign initially disabled the comment function on YouTube and prevented response videos from appearing alongside. A YouTube video without comments, some pundits groused, is more like a monologue than a chat, fireside or not. “I don’t see how one-way messages provide any more transparency for the work of the White House or government than the current old-style radio addresses,” blogged Ellen Miller, director of the Sunlight Foundation, a government-transparency watchdog group. “Is Obama ready,” challenged TechCrunch, “to be a two-way president?”

Of course, Obama’s transition team had good reasons for disabling responses. For starters, YouTube comments are typically the intellectual equivalent of truck-stop graffiti. (When the team belatedly allowed comments a couple of weeks later, the site was flooded with insights like “USA susks.”) Also, his team would have zero control over the potentially critical or embarrassing response videos that users would post next to the address. The real reason, however, was that Obama wasn’t actually trying to have a conversation with Americans via YouTube. Like every president before him, he was simply harnessing the latest tools to talk to them, one-way.

Technophiles who watched the campaign closely expected more, and now they are putting pressure on the White House to govern with unparalleled transparency and citizen interaction. Dan Froomkin of the Niemen Watchdog Journalism Project and The Washington Post summed up expectations in a blog post calling for Obama to embrace “wiki culture” in which “major policy proposals have public collaborative workspaces.”

150,000+ subscribers
follow Obama’s Twitter feed.

0 tweets
have been posted by Obama staffers since the election.

Obama has himself to blame for raising such expectations. During the campaign, he embraced every form of social media. At My.BarackObama.com, supporters could create profiles, talk to each other, and—by election day—plan some 200,000 offline dinners and living room fund-raisers. Users could log in from home to get lists of swing-state voters to telephone; this generated 3 million calls in the final four days of the race. Those efforts were combined with massive database-crunching to identify potential voters who could be approached door-to-door by last-minute canvassers, myself included.

As for John McCain’s efforts, well, he didn’t really have any. According to Andrew Rasiej and Micah Sifry, cofounders of the Personal Democracy Forum and the blog TechPresident, Obama had four times the number of Facebook supporters, 24 times the Twitter devotees, and three times the visitors to his site in the final campaign week. The public watched about 15 million hours of Obama campaign videos on YouTube. Along the way, Obama collected 13 million email addresses, more than a million cell phone numbers, and a half-billion dollars in online donations.

There’s also another reason to expect a tech-driven presidency: Obama promised it. He said he would expand government transparency by putting more data up on the Web, streaming meetings live, and letting the public comment on most legislation for five days before he signs it. He said he would bring blogs, wikis, and social networking tools with him into the executive branch—all overseen by a new national chief technology officer. Indeed, Obama’s transition site, Change.gov, offers glimmers of a potential digital presidency with its YouTube addresses, issue-based discussion forums, and inside-the-transition videos featuring future cabinet members responding to comments.

But turning his innovative campaign and transition into Government 2.0 won’t be easy. The nimble Obama startup is about to be absorbed into a stodgy, technologically backward behemoth: the federal government. Ahead are bureaucratic obstacles the campaign never imagined, along with the political land mines that transparency brings. Obama will have to preserve the enthusiasm of his supporters while engaging the larger group of people who either didn’t vote for him or didn’t vote at all. His task is to rebuild the personal connection that supporters felt they had with Obama the candidate, assuring them that he is listening to them—without being deafened by the cacophony. If he can do that, Obama can alter how the government engages its citizenry and accomplish what he really cares about: his own policy goals.

Building that intimacy from the Oval Office will be a delicate and complex task, and just letting “AcidTrout” respond to a YouTube address with “Who’s the black guy?!?” isn’t going to do it. “One of the things that gives me ulcers is that there are a lot of high expectations,” says an Obama aide. “But we’re going to have to change how government thinks about the Internet before we can do the things we want to do.”

500+ PDFs
submitted by third parties for viewing and public comment are available on Change.gov.

Still, Macon Phillips, the campaign’s deputy director of new media, who has served in a similar role for the transition, warns: “Day one is going to be a lot different than perhaps day 100.”

The basement of the General Services Administration building in Washington, with its maze of identical hallways and frosted glass doors, reeks of generic federal bureaucracy. But if the new administration plans to reboot the system, it will find a pair of guides here in Bev Godwin and Sheila Campbell, cheerful doyens of the executive branch’s Web strategy. Godwin, director of USA.gov, the federal government’s all-purpose information Web portal, and Campbell, head of the government’s Web Best Practices Team, know every manacle and chain shackling the government to the 20th century. In a drab conference room one afternoon in late November, they discussed their optimism—and detailed their concerns.

For starters, the federal government operates more than 24,000 separate sites, many of them years out of date. “Nobody stepped back and asked strategically, how do we do this?” Godwin says. “Whenever there is a new initiative or program, they put up a new Web site.” And the first thing they usually do on that site, she says, is post a bandwidth-hogging picture of the bureaucrat in charge.

3,701 comments
on health care were submitted online to secretary of health and human services designate Tom Daschle.

Godwin and Campbell have been pushing government agencies to treat citizens more like customers, rebuilding their sites to help visitors do things like find loans or obtain passports—rather than serve as static repositories for press releases and personnel photos. “At Housing and Urban Development, for example, one of the missions is to reduce homelessness,” Godwin says. “If you go to HUD.gov, can you find shelter? The answer is no.” If the government can improve itself in these little ways, they say, great. Don’t worry about trying wild stuff, like setting up federal social networks. Many agencies bar employees from even looking at sites like Facebook at work, much less building their own versions.

Progress has been achingly slow. There have been some notable exceptions—like a blog on the Transportation Security Administration Web site, open to comments and manned by five agency staffers, and NASA.gov’s numerous social media initiatives, including Twitter feeds from 20 missions and projects. But the successes are rare and isolated. “We know that there are a lot of people advocating for more open government,” Godwin says. “We’re saying, absolutely, put the data out there. But I think we have to be realistic.”

For example, many of Obama’s online campaign techniques would be impeded by a collection of obscure and well-intentioned rules. Amendments to the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, for example, require that all government Web content be made reasonably accessible—in real time—to disabled users. Also, six months of negotiations between the General Services Administration and Google to establish a federal YouTube channel have stalled over similarly intricate legal issues. Meanwhile, a Clinton-era law called the Paperwork Reduction Act requires that an agency undergo a laborious approval process any time it “surveys” more than 10 people. The result: “Agencies tend to avoid doing these kind of surveys,” Godwin says. Would having users submit information to a social network or wiki count as a survey? Nobody knows.

20.3 million:
The number of visits to Obama’s YouTube channel since its September 2006 launch.

Even triumphs like Obama’s 2006 Google for Government bill, cosponsored with Republican senator Tom Coburn, have been caught up in red tape. The bill led to the creation of FedSpending.org, a site allowing the public to track federal contracts and grants. Instead of building it in-house, the Office of Management and Budget decided to license something similar from a nonprofit watchdog group, OMB Watch—for just 4 percent of what the government had expected to spend. It was a striking victory for government efficiency, but the process behind the scenes “was extremely difficult,” says Gary Bass, executive director of OMB Watch. After floating the idea of donating the system to OMB (“the government can’t take things for free,” Bass quickly learned), the nonprofit had to sign on as a subcontractor and undergo three rounds, and six wasted months, of bidding before the deal was complete.

Changes to what is effectively the president’s homepage, WhiteHouse.gov, will encounter similar obstacles. David Almacy, a PR executive and new media consultant at Waggener Edstrom who served as the Bush administration’s White House Internet director from 2005 to 2007, recalls that following Hurricane Katrina, he posted the transcript of a speech to the site. In the text, where Bush had directed people to Redcross.org, Almacy helpfully inserted a hyperlink. “Within a few hours,” Almacy says, “I got a call from the White House general counsel’s office saying I needed to take out the link.” Some federal government Web pages, it turns out, are virtually barred from linking to nongovernmental sites to avoid the appearance of endorsing one product or organization over another.

The incoming administration is still working to assess the implications of the Presidential Records Act, the post-Nixon legislation requiring the preservation of all White House written communications. But that means that once any page goes up on the White House site, it can’t be altered, only archived and replaced, greatly slowing down the process of modifying and enhancing pages.

The Obama team was able to sidestep these kinds of troublesome rules on Change.gov, in part because, as a quasi-governmental site, it’s not subject to executive-branch restrictions. They were able to post videos on YouTube, link to outside sites, and even publish content under a Creative Commons license, allowing it to be freely shared.

24,000 Web sites
are operated by the US government.

When he does arrive at the White House, Obama or his CTO can lift some of the Internet restrictions with the stroke of a pen. Others will require congressional action or clever technology.

Even if Obama’s tech team gets a free hand to rework the federal webosphere, things can still go awry. Take the 2006 race of Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick. Both David Axelrod, Obama’s top campaign strategist, and David Plouffe, his campaign manager, worked for Patrick, a little-known candidate who used Internet-driven grassroots support to win. In a precursor to My.BarackObama .com, the Patrick campaign placed the state’s voter list on its Web site, allowing its supporters to download phone numbers and call neighbors. “We believed in people’s ability to organize themselves and get involved,” says Charles SteelFisher, who ran the campaign’s Web operation.

No We Can’t

Barack Obama wants to transform the way the White House connects with the public. But there are plenty of obstacles standing in his way. After the election, the governor’s team launched DevalPatrick.com to keep supporters engaged. On a MyIssue page, registered commenters could propose, comment on, and vote for legislative ideas.

But the administration was immediately blasted when a database feature designed to verify Massachusetts residency was alleged (incorrectly) to reveal unlisted phone numbers. The privacy flap lured a collection of trolls and conspiracy theorists to the site, crowding out earnest discussion on gambling bills and income taxes with 9/11 chatter and religious debates. Critics, meanwhile, said that Patrick’s efforts were less about engaging the public than about running a permanent online campaign.

Eventually Patrick’s Web site recovered, developing a more sophisticated way of moderating comments and creating forums around the governor’s plans to reduce property taxes and add public kindergarten programs. The site also allowed people to create grassroots communities to work on issues they cared about. Still, the public isn’t exactly burning up the site: The leading vote-getter, a bill to promote fathers’ custody rights in divorce cases, had just 1,100 tallies as of mid-December. Offshore wind power, meanwhile, was losing, 16 votes to 15.

Obama’s team has moved carefully as it transitions from campaigning to governing. Between two wars and an economy in shambles, building an Oval Office social network has not topped the priority list. “Day one, do we need a White House My.BarackObama? I don’t think so,” says the Obama aide, who was required by the transition press office to speak anonymously. “It’s more important to step back and ask, what are the goals for the White House? And I think that making the government more accountable and transparent is more important than getting people to act.”

To that end, the transition team served up small accountability stuff first. Change .gov supplemented Obama’s weekly YouTube addresses with periodic videos from inside the transition process, everything from staff meetings to vlog-type updates from advisers. In early December, Obama’s public director of liaison and intergovernmental affairs announced—via video—a Change.gov feature called Your Seat at the Table, through which the transition would post every document received from every interest group and outside person throwing it advice. Users were allowed to comment next to the documents, while the Open for Questions feature let them submit and vote on questions for the transition team. The latter experiment illustrated the double-edged nature of feedback when the Senate-seat-selling scandal involving Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich broke. Supporters began flagging related questions “inappropriate,” and then Obama staffers buried the queries. ABCNews.com jumped on the story and the apparent hypocrisy. Obama Transition Web Site ‘Open for Questions’—Except on Blagojevich read the headline.

Change.gov does feature some Slashdot-like issue forums where user rankings send the most popular comments to the top. The first forum, in which two staffers appeared in a short video on health care policy and asked for comments, garnered thousands of horror stories and policy prescriptions. A week later, one of the staffers reappeared with future health and human services secretary Tom Daschle in a rehearsed-looking YouTube video response. “We are just so pleased that so many of you have written in,” Daschle said, appearing extra-pleased. “I spent a lot of the weekend actually reading the comments … We want to make sure that you understand how important those comments and your contributions are.” The comments the pair selected to discuss, however, seemed serendipitously aligned with Obama’s proposed initiatives.

550,000 responses
came in from supporters after Obama adviser David Plouffe requested feedback about the campaign.

In other words, with everything he’s done so far, Obama has been acknowledging feedback but not necessarily heeding it. And that’s what we can expect from Obama’s plan to post all pending nonemergency legislation online and allow the public to comment for five days before he acts on it. By mid-December, technology advisers were still struggling to determine the best way to implement the idea. The bigger question is, what will it accomplish? Even the system’s own architects concede that it’s unlikely that online comments and voting will sway the decision to sign or veto.

Nor should it. The Obama team, for all its Web enthusiasm, recognizes that an online community—no matter how vibrant—doesn’t represent all of the American public. “A lot of people consider online interactions and communications as representative of Americans. But we have a lot more high-speed Internet lines to drop before that’s true,” the Obama aide says. And even with ubiquitous broadband, online voting would remain the ultimate in self-selected polling. There’s no reason to believe that commenters would reflect Americans as a whole or even that they’d be Americans at all. Citizens also may not be as interested in the daily machinery of Obama’s workaday government as they were in his novel campaign. Case in point: By mid-December, views of Obama’s weekly YouTube address had dropped by half.

Still, the new administration wants to be able to marshal its supporters to act. Obama himself suggested as much last April. “Our database has a couple million people on there who are activated and inspired,” he told a small group in Indianapolis. “And so what I want to do is to continue that after the election.” In mid-November, Plouffe sent out a series of emails to supporters. The first directed them to a detailed survey of their campaign experience and policy interests and told them, “It’s up to you to decide how we move forward.” Later, a Plouffe missive declared that “you’ll be instrumental in generating support to pass legislation that puts America on the road to recovery.” At a closed-door meeting with its leading activists in Chicago in December, the Obama team took it a step further and told activists to be ready to pressure Congress on economic stimulus, health care, and energy legislation. A couple of weeks later, the campaign encouraged its supporters to organize “change is coming” get-togethers to discuss the future of the Obama movement, online and off.

Obama doesn’t want his 13 million-name email list to serve as just another political interest group. He needs it to be a tool to keep people engaged with his politics and policies. “Even if you push through the best government programs,” says Michael Cornfield, a political-science professor at George Washington University, “it’s hard to solve the actual problems” without effort from regular people. A national health care plan, for example, will work a whole lot better if former precinct captains are willing to explain it to their neighbors, just as they explained how to get to the polls. And a presidential Twitter feed, Flickr photos, or WhiteHouse.gov video Q&A sessions may not vastly increase transparency or deeply inform policy, but they create a valuable intimacy with citizens. “People who think they are being listened to tend to respect more the person talking,” says Rasiej.

That may not sound like a big deal. But contrary to what Web evangelists and the incoming administration would like to believe, Obama’s campaign was never a bottom-up endeavor. The incoming president didn’t crowdsource his view on the Iraq war or use Digg to determine how to allocate campaign dollars. He ran one of the most tightly controlled, top-down campaigns in modern history, to the point of pressuring outside advocacy groups not to advertise on his behalf. Rather, he asked his supporters for money and inspired them to get involved, giving them the tools to organize themselves and a message to sign on to.

Instead of turning WhiteHouse.gov into a governmental synthesis of Facebook and Wikipedia, or running a permanent campaign off the White House email list, Obama’s best shot at rebooting the government is to remember how he got there: making people feel that they were part of the solution and then enabling them to talk to one another and take action. “There is a relationship between Barack Obama and each individual, and that’s multiplied tens of millions of times over,” says Joe Rospars, the campaign’s director of new media. “But there are also millions and millions of relationships between our supporters. Both of those kinds of relationships didn’t end on Election Day.”

[via WIRED] by Evan Ratliff

The U.S. Small Business Administration is offering Web chats to help small businesses across the country weather the recession.

If you as a product manager would like to build a user community that will self sustain, here are some tips based on my experience building the foundations of a user community on 3D ContentCentral website that currently has close to 450,000 registered members.

1) What is in it for them? – Have a dead simple value proposition for the users to join your community.  I repeat again – It has to be dead simple to understand. In the case of 3D ContentCentral, product designers got to download free 3D models of supplier components such as cylinders, motors, gears, electrical components etc. that saved them valuable design time that they would otherwise spend modeling these purchased components.

2) Enable sharing – Allow users to contribute to the community whether this is through discussions, add content to the website. Make it interactive. Tap into the wisdom of the crowd. But make the sharing process super easy to use. You need to act as the catalyst to start the interaction and then step out of the way. In the above case, we created a user library that allowed users to easily share 3D models of the purchased components between themselves. All we provided was free disk space and a website.

3) Enable peer recognition – Humans value peer recognition a whole lot more than monetary compensation. Who would not want to be recognized as an MVP by their peers? So enable it – allow users to recognize people whether it be via ratings and reviews or just by allowing people to say send a Thank you note via your community site.

4) Spotlight high performers: Recognize the high performers yourself. Have a spotlight section and recognize them. 3D ContentCentral has a spotlight that recognizes those users that contributed the maximum number of models. But don’t allow this to stagnate. Keep changing the user who gets spotlighted so that everyone knows they have a shot at it. Also ends up to be peer motivation – if he can do it, why can’t I?

5) Listen: Allow users to tell you how you can help them interact better. Listen to their ideas and the make the experience better. User community will use the site in ways you never predicted. But don’t put up a front and say – this is the way you shall use it. Forgo ownership (as long as the site is not being hijacked in illegal or unethical ways), play the role of the catalyst. You will be surprised as to how well the community will police itself and kick the bad guys out – all because of the tremendous value the community is providing them. Stand on the side and watch and step in only when absolutely needed. Again, provide a mechanism for the community to notify you so that you can take action. For example, we had a simple “Report inappropriate content” feature which allowed users to flag bad stuff. And guess what, such reports were not that many. When you do get valid reports of inappropriate stuff, thank the person who notified you and immediately take action whether it is to remove such stuff or kick out the repeat offenders. But use the feather first and the hammer only if absolutely needed.

[via ProductMarketingTips] by Gopal Shenoy

Behind every Twitter account is a person. But some of these people ‘hide’ behind organizational brands, obscuring their persona and therefore reducing authenticity and transparency.

While some brands do a decent job of engaging people on Twitter, many don’t, and one could further argue that brand names and logos, as opposed to full names and user images, are not in the spirit of the Twitterverse.

People Talk to People

Twitter is about people sharing information with other people. So how do one-dimensional organizational brands fit into this mix? When you really think about it, they don’t. As an analogy, when you call customer service, a human answers the phone (eventually) and tells you their name – and you’re not talking to “Sprint” or “Dell” but rather “Steve” or “Danny.”

So, does anyone really want to talk to @DunkinDonuts? Or would they rather talk to Bill Rosenberg, the founder of Dunkin Donuts of Canton, MA, or perhaps the local franchise owner on Capitol Hill, or a disgruntled but funny summer employee punching in at 4am? People connect with people, and so I think the latter.

Twitter is still deciding how to monetize, and one possible approach would be to charge organizations a fee for using the service as a marketing tool. Most brands are not yet tweeting, but selling a premium service might increase Twitter’s profile and suddenly seem like an attractive strategy. I think this would be a mistake from the viewpoint of people who use Twitter.

Twitter may become little more than an enormous number of feeds, mainly full of nothing of interest to you. And while the system is built to be opt-in, the prospect of wading through 100 or 1000 times more junk when you do searches, companies hiring SEO consultants to put key words in front of your face, and seeing @AnimalCrackers at the top of the TwitterGrader list in my local area are unattractive byproducts of this business model. (Alternatively, brands just might not buy in at all.)

No Brands on Twitter

Thinking about what might be best for people, in my opinion Twitter should not only not charge brands for membership, but also ban them altogether. Not unlike Facebook and other sites, every account would represent a person using a real name, location, and picture.

People could still tout their businesses, hobbies, and anything else in their handle, bio, or feed, but in an environment of authenticity and therefore increased trust. Some people will game the system, to be sure; but they will often get found out through the wisdom of crowds, so what’s the point?

New users would find having only real, authentic people on Twitter more attractive. Let’s face it, not many people use Twitter yet, and a company with a trusted brand like IBM could develop a platform with a better GUI and a few more features that my parents would be far more likely to try out, perhaps initially bankrolled as a public service. Twitter is far from invulnerable.
Personalities Might Help Brands

this-space-for-rentI think that authentic and transparent personal Twitter accounts – being yourself in an uncontrived way – may indirectly and intimately influence (I3) organizational brands, because of the level of trust involved in sharing information with someone over the course of time. Many people have increased awareness of the government through talking to me and reading my Twitter feed. But I am not a public affairs professional, nor the official brand of the Department of Defense – just an informed, empowered, and hopefully interesting individual.

Having just one personal account would also streamline Twitter’s user base, structuring it in a slight but possibly meaningful way. Why try to gain ambient awareness via TwitterFeed, when each person associated with an organization is a word-of-mouth advertising device?

Dr. Mark Drapeau is a biological scientist, government consultant, and regular contributor to Mashable.com and other venues. These views are his own and do not represent the official views of any organization.

[via Mashable] by Mark Drapeau

I’ve been fascinated by the analysis of the Obama campaign. In many ways, Obama’s campaign and its success is a big, bright, “LCD sign” of the times. New media has come of age in a very public way.

Most people seem to agree that the campaign used a number of techniques to capture an audience and even inspire the traditionally unenthusiastic. Some of my favorite attributions are:

Audacity – the fact that Obama wasn’t afraid to “redefine his target audience” and go after states like Indiana who this November voted for a Democrat for the first time in 44 years.

Mobilizing Large Numbers and doing it “Grass Roots” – unprecedented fundraising success by generating large numbers of small donations rather than small numbers of large donations to raise more than an estimated $600 million (McCain raised an estimated $250 million).

The Message Consistency – the message never waivered from the idea of being an “antidote” to the status quo.

But perhaps the most obvious and (to a techie like me) inspiring elements of witnessing this campaign was its focus on social technology to support and propel all of the other techniques.

The use of “new media” from friend building on Friendster to the seemingly simple text message proved to be a powerhouse for the campaign, as it extended the concept of “Team Obama” far beyond campaign headquarters literally into the hands of millions of Americans who voted and vocalized with their typing fingers.

For all the small business owners who couldn’t help wondering, wow – can I do that? My answer is Yes you can! (Sorry couldn’t help myself).

In taking a closer look, the technologies used form a rather familiar list:

• Official Web site: http://www.barakobama.com and http://my.barakobama.com
• Text messaging strategy – enabled via collecting phone numbers on a mass scale
• LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/barackobama
• Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/barackobamadotcom/
• Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/barackobama
• Twitter: http://twitter.com/BarackObama
• YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/BarackObamadotcom
• Meetup.com: http://barackobama.meetup.com/

The list reads like a “who’s who” of social media marketing.

But the real power in these technologies is understanding that the goal is not just to “set up” one tool or another, but to understand each tool’s potential. That potential in the Obama campaign was brought to fruition by:

• having a consistent message
• providing free and open access to “making a connection”
• *always* keeping the tool up to date
• providing pertinent digestible bytes of information that could be read, downloaded, passed on
• leveraging the sheer quantity of enthusiasts and supporters on each tool to disperse messages almost instantly across an unbelievably wide, new network of venues and communities that hasn’t been seen since the invention of television.

Think about the leverage that a database of 948,000 people on MySpace and 3.1 million people on Facebook provides when you have a message to communicate (and consider that vs. McCain’s 221,000 on MySpace and 600,000 on Facebook).

As you think about your business and consider the challenge to build brand, generate buzz and stay on the radar as a small business owner with limited time and a limited budget, there are some very simple lessons to learn here:

1. everybody needs a team. Whether you’re trying to build a team of millions of voters or a few thousand supporters of your business, build a team by building a venue for them to get involved. Even the simplest involvement can be powerful.

2. email, the Web, and cellular technology have created an unprecedented venue for that involvement. Know who should be on your team and know the different ways they like to be involved.

3. Use wisely. Learn how these technologies work and learn by example how they can be leveraged to build a community of supporters for you.

This is an advantage that won’t last forever. As businesses gain competency in these techniques and learn to invest wisely, these techniques will slowly become standards rather than competitive advantages.

But it is possible for a growing small business to build a strategic, cost-effective and impactful social media campaign. As “Team Obama” has shown – yes you can.

Another great article about Obama’s Viral Marketing in TIME MAGAZINE.

[via Inc Magazine] by Maisha Walker

There are two kinds of companies in the Valley: those that make money, and those that don’t have to. As the economy worsens, the former group behaves like firms in other sectors, making cuts and revising earnings expectations. For the latter group, living in a VC-backed candyland, it’s as good a time as any to spend half a billion dollars on something fun.

So it was this week with two contrasting companies: Adobe [ADBE [1]] and Facebook. Adobe announced Thursday that it will miss its earnings targets for its fourth quarter ending November 28th, 2008, and will implement a restructuring program that will eliminate 600 full time jobs worldwide. Facebook, meanwhile, tried to buy Twitter for $500 million, despite the fact that it doesn’t make any money, and seems to need increasingly more capital to function.

Adobe’s misfortunes are yet another indication that technology companies, usually insulated from larger economic fluctuations, cannot remain buoyant amidst the global economic crisis. The company had projected revenues of between $925 million and $955 million, but said Thursday that it would only achieve $912 to $915 million.

The gap in revenue Adobe attributes to weak sales of its new Creative Suite 4 software, which was released in October. To make up the difference, the company will eliminate 600 full-time positions, which an Adobe spokesperson says will affect “Everyone across the board, all regions, and all business areas.” The cuts should should save Adobe tens of millions of dollars, much of which can be recorded in the fourth quarter of 2008. The spokesperson declined to say whether Adobe will re-hire any of those positions should the economy show signs of recovery.

Facebook’s profligacy seems irrational by comparison. The company is predicted to earn revenues of only about $300 million this year, which is about the same as the overhead it takes to keep the office running, according to Michael Arrington [2]. But that hasn’t stopped the social network from reportedly trying to buy Twitter with a combination of cash and stock options. Twitter’s CEO, Evan Williams, declined the offer.

Twitter doesn’t make any money either; its revenues are close to zero. Both companies are well capitalized, but reports of Facebook’s CFO flying around the world talking to sovereign wealth funds suggest that Facebook is growing too fast for its own good, and reaching a hunger for capital that US firms simply can’t — or won’t — surfeit. Twitter too is reportedly [3] putting revenue at the top of its list of things to do, in anticipation of a weakening fundraising landscape. The company had previously said it would wait until 2010 to worry about making money.

While I don’t doubt that juggernaut Facebook has its telescopes pointed in the right direction, it’s hard not to second guess the company’s prospects. If it is to ever become profitable, it will need to learn how to monetize a tool that gleans 3 out of 4 of its users from overseas, and sells famously ineffectual advertising space. Owning and managing another unprofitable Web entity would only exacerbate the problem. Had the buyout succeeded, 2009 might have been the year that Facebook was forced to come back down to earth.

[via Fast Company] by Chris Dannen

When you read about the stories of successful entrepreneurs you always come across similar advice: “Surround yourself with successful people”

How do you actually go about doing that? Here are 7 strategies to help you get started.

1) Join A Peer / Mastermind Group

Join a group of people who are committed to running their businesses and taking it to the next level. It can be lonely being an entrepreneur and most business owners don’t have a support network to turn to for help for their companies. Sure your friends and family listen but can they really help? Amazing things happen when you can connect with other people who are really doing things with their businesses. You will get inspired and you will also inspire them to work harder as well.

I run a series of Mastermind Groups in Toronto and we always look for people who are beyond the startup stage. Make sure that whatever group you join that you a) can go for a trial first, b) are with other members who have different skill sets, and c) are in a structured atmosphere where people take the group seriously. Also make sure that you are not the most knowledgeable person in the room. You learn more when you are with people who have accomplished more than you.

Most of the large cities have various Mastermind groups that you can join. If you don’t have one locally, you can also seek out ones that meet online instead of in person.

2) Go To Related Business Events

Depending on how big a city you live in, you’ll have a bigger selection of different business events to check out. Look for ones that inspire you and you will learn from. Quite often they are free. For example, one of my favorite events was when Ted Rogers, founder of Rogers Communications, one of the largest companies in Canada, came to speak at a local bookstore as a part of an entrepreneur promotional series the store was doing. The popular business author Tom Peters also did a great event there that was very inspiring.  Total cost to me: $0.

By going to these events you’ll not only get motivated from the speaker but you’ll also meet other people who are interested in the speaker. Chances are those people are also going to be motivated to succeed as well and you can make some great connections to help your business if you keep an open mind. Usually authors with business books do a series of appearances at stores to promote their new books and it can be a great (and free) opportunity to get a few new ideas.

3) Surround Yourself With Famous Entrepreneurs

I love reading the stories of famous entrepreneurs and how they got started. That’s why I write a regular series in this blog. Every time I read a success story it motivates me to do better and reach farther. Even though you may not know Richard Branson personally, you can get a lot of benefits from his teachings by reading his books (”Losing My Virginity” is fantastic!) and listening to his interviews. You can even look up your favorite entrepreneurs on YouTube to get an added boost of motivation.

When you’re faced with an important business decision, or if you’re just procrastinating and putting off doing work, ask yourself “What would Richard Branson (or your favorite entrepreneur) do?” Would Richard Branson be down on himself and browing the web wasting time or would he be out selling and making things happen??

4) Check Out Industry Conferences, Connect With The Experts

Whatever industry you’re in there will always be industry related conferences. Go check them out, do your research as to who the keynote speakers will be and have a few questions in mind for them. Make sure to connect with them before they come on and begin their presentation because they will be bombarded with questions afterward.

When I went to my last Search Engine Strategies conference in Toronto, I connected with the two presenters at the Site Clinic before they started talking. They were just sitting up on the stage alone and nobody was talking with them (they actually looked pretty bored waiting to get started!). After they finished, however, they were suddenly bombarded with people trying to get their questions in before they closed the room to set up for the next event. I was able to make a personal connection with them and get 20 minutes of one on one time all on my own because I went in before the rush. Do your research beforehand, have your questions ready, and connect with the experts before their presentations!

5) Get Online!

Forums like Young Entrepreneur are great places to meet people and have people hold you accountable for doing what you say you are going to do. The downside is that anybody can respond and you don’t really know how successful people are so you have to do some weeding through to figure out who you want to listen to.

Join Young Entrepreneur and post your business idea. You’ll definitely get some comments and advice from the members. Then you can go on to discuss some of your goals and what your timeline for succsess is. Come back regularly and update the community as to how you’re doing. Did you accomplish your goals? Did you fall short? Why? What happened? Doing this on an ongoing basis will keep you accountanble for doing what you say you’re going to do as well as introduce you to a wide network of entrepreneurs who will support you and your ideas.

6) Find Ways To Help People You Admire

Want to make a connection with someone you look up to and potentially get their advice? Find a way to help them first! Do your research on them and subscribe to Google News Alerts about them as well as the industries they are in. Think about a service you might be able to provide to help them out or introduce them to a new opportunity. If you can find a way to genuinely help them, they will remember you and will usually be more than happy to return the favor – if not out of gratitude, out of curiosity (who is this person who came out of nowhere to help me out??).

As an example, there was a successful businessman that I looked up to in Toronto who was not very technology savvy. I met himm briefly at an event and later went home and subscribed to Google News Alerts to stay on top of news in his industry and would fax him (he didn’t use email) regularly on new trends that were occuring. I did this for a couple weeks then called in to ask him if he found them useful. He didn’t remember meeting me at the event but he sure did appreciate the faxes! He was curious as to who was sending him this information and invited me over for dinner. I got a lot of free advice from him (and a free meal!) as well as made a new contact that I can use in the future for my different business ventures. Find a way to help them first and they will help you later.

7) Look Around You, Keep An Open Mind!

Chances are there are already people in your life who can be a great help to you if you just open your mind and ask for help. Do you ever notice that when you buy a new car or a new pair of shoes you suddenly see everyone else with the same car of same shoes? Did everyone else go out and buy what you just bought? No. Because you’re focusing on it, you start to see it in your environment more often.

Your brain can only process a certain number of inputs at once – most of the information it receives gets tossed out but if you set your mind to thinking about something, you’ll begin to find ways to get your goal accomplished. This is why The Secret and The Law of Attraction have been so popular in recent years. Look for successful people and keep an open mind – you will find them. As the famous saying goes, “The teacher will appear when the student is ready.”

[via YoungEntrepreneur.com] by Evan Carmichael