Google+ was up 10M+ members within two week of its launch. At that time, there was suspicion that those stats were a function of Facebook burnout or curiosity, rather than intended use. Several months later, we’re seeing some flurries of activity from Facebook, including an overhaul of privacy settings in response to Google+. This is precisely the type of response that gets people wondering whether Google+ is here to stay, and whether it is a contender for their time.

For my part, I believe that Google+ is here to stay. Here’s a laundry list of my reasons:

1) It’s now up to 25 million users. And growing.
To give perspective, it took 1 year for Twitter for break 10 million, and Facebook 2 years. Though the increased adoption rate is easily explained by the fact that Google is a widely known web property, and the fact that social networks require less education, you still can’t deny that it is now a major player in the social space.

2) Google allows you to organize contacts into circles.
I have 7 people in my family circle, which allows me to either share only with those people, or listen to only those people.  That way you can share a crude joke with your father, without ruining your career. We knew that this was a great idea from the get go, but since Facebook’s recent announcement that it would allow for similar functionality on its network, it’s clearly a game changing idea. It smacks a bit of catch up.

3) Hangouts.
Being able to conference with up to ten people with no cost or software.  Awesome and useful, and a far better user experience than Facebook’s foray into video messaging of a couple months ago.

4) You can permalink to posts.
If you have ever needed to sift through months of wall history to find something you or someone else posted, you immediately understand how valuable this type of functionality can be.

5) Google+ combines the best of many worlds, plus some.
The fact is that this network combines the capabilities of Facebook and Twitter into one format that goes beyond 140 characters. Brand pages will be launching this fall, with the ability to target sub sets of your audience at any given time. This means that an automotive brand could technically write posts to owners of one lineup of cars, or two a survey of owners of a certain age demographic. These Brand features when they are released will no doubt attract brands in a big way.

What do you think? Is Google+ worth your time or will Facebook, with a couple tweaks, continue to dominate?

“Influence” – one of the big buzz words in the social space for 2011.  It’s a word that marketers are intimately familiar with – just ask pysop.tv.

But as is the case with many words adopted by the digital community, the meaning has been beaten about a bit.

Influence can be calculated through the probability of message amplification, which is measurable by tools like PeerIndex and Klout. Though each of these services has its own algorithm to do all the complex math bits, the premise is pretty simple: measure the ratio between talking and engagement, and multiply the result by the size of your network.

For example, Klout knows that I have 700+ followers on Twitter, 2500 tweets, 200 unique mentions, and x number retweets. Based on this information they give me a Klout score of 61 (give or take). They give a 35% likelihood that my content will amplify, with a possible reach of 15,000+ people.

Klout may believe that I am a “key influencer,” but that may not necessarily be the case. It might just be that I am good at finding content from other influencers. The reality is that content is king: its the links, thoughts and memes that are the spreadable commodity. So while “reach” is a form of influence, it isn’t the primary type of influence that individuals or brands should seek out if they’re looking to shift perceptions or spur action.

So how can you influence behaviour? Studies show us that consumer behaviour is most readily influenced by peer opinion. Marketers’ first instinct has been to use social media to amplify their brand messaging, in the hopes that consumers who share that message will radiate credibility to their friends. But this is only partially true, because its really the content of the share that will influence further sharing. If it is apparent that a consumer is being incented to share crappy content, the credibility of that content decreases. Concurrently, if the brand lacks credibility, the likelihood of pickup also decreases.

But how do you establish that credible, shareable presence? It’s a massive question, but a partial response can be found in studying consumer behaviour. And here we see something we already knew: people’s consumer behavior is altered by their friends, because they trust their friends, and generally appreciate the content that they share. So the short answer to the holy grail of gaining credible influence? Be true to your brand image, and dole out great content.

I can’t therefore stress the importance or expansive nature of “content,” which can be regarded as anything the brand is offering to its consumers. The “value” of content may be intangible (in the service of entertainment, creating emotional connection, or otherwise haloing the brand), or more obviously geared to improving consumer experience (loyalty programs, retail experiences or utilities). Each of these pieces plays a role. Eliminating things like commercials or digital engagement experiences removes a piece of the influence-building puzzle, because its this content that provides hooks for amplification.

The social space is the new reality of the consumer. When they see a product that they really like, a commercial they find funny or have a great or horrible experience at a store, they communicate it on mass to their friends and networks. And even then, they will probably only do so if the content feels authentic.

The most obvious way to pave the way to authenticity in your brand’s communications is to act in a consistent manner to the message you are delivering. But remember even if your brand strives to be authentic, you must still earn the trust of the consumer by offering:

1) Consistency: Try to consistently deliver content that resonates with the consumer. It also means consistently engaging with the community, and making an effort to reach into the other communities your consumer engages in.

2) Agility: The perception of authenticity is heightened by the speed and accuracy with which a brand responds. Say the right things quickly, and avoid sounding scripted.

3) Repayment: Followers volunteer time to consume the brand’s content. Pay that time back. Consider spreading information about relevant local events over Twitter, or drawing attention to a fan’s content (art, music).

The combination of solid content and an authentic, engaged presence is what paves the way to influence. In the end, the consumer votes with every tweet, every comment, every like, and every purchase. Influence comes from the community deciding whom they trust enough to follow, believe and ultimately buy from.

Are there any other ways in which you feel a brand can gain influence?

Advertisers are the strategic and creative partners of the brands they represent. Mass, digital and social media are all tools in the advertiser’s toolbox. But too often, these tools aren’t honed on insight. And it only makes sense that dull tools make harder and less precise work.

As advertisers, we need to add cultural and behavioral insights to our strategic mix. This means asking those who follow your brand questions, and being prepared to learn from the answers you receive.

Why car brand “X” above all others? Why is “Y” your go-to brew of summer? What can we do as a brand to better serve you as a consumer? You don’t need to activate against every piece of advice that comes through the door, but if many of your consumers are all suggesting the same changes, making the same remarks, or asking the same questions, it doesn’t take an analyst to recognize that both brand and agency should consider the implications pretty closely.

I’m talking about asking your brand stewards, getting feedback, considering it, and asking more questions. Focus groups may point to some of the same conclusions; the trouble with focus groups is that the process is less organic. Respondants in the social space have come to the brand on their own. Sure, they may have followed a targeted link that drives to your brand’s Facebook page, but they stay and engage of their own accord. These are your real brand stewards, the people that love the brand beyond any single campaign, and may advocate for the brand in their personal lives. These are the people you want insights from.  What did the brand do to garner that type of loyalty? These cultural insights can help tell marketers enhance their ability to communicate in all channels.

Most of the time these cultural and behavioral trends connect smaller groups of people.  Tuners love Honda, for example, because they see Honda as a part of their tuner culture.

This in itself can be very useful from a CRM and consumer expansion point of view. The broadness of the social landscape hands brands the opportunity to communicate directly to smaller subcultures within their greater brand community, without alienating the larger group. Honda can reward the tuners in their community by sponsoring tuner events, while still reaching out to the family drivers that love Honda for it’s reliability.

Throughout this series, we harp on the same theme over and over: access. Access has fundamentally changed how the social order is perceived, how consumers make and consume, and how brands therefore need to change. Access to knowledge, production and communication has created much more sophisticated consumer, while access to brands has allowed consumers to influence the brands they love. People are more empowered to research and make than ever before. It’s up to brands to now access their consumers, thereby making the personal connections that made the brand successful in the first place.

The only questions that remain is how far can it be taken.

Something astonishing has happened in the past decade that we, as a society, take for granted: we walk around with 10,000 years of human knowledge and history in our pockets. We see the effects all around us and we ponder the causes, but we fail to look at how our own behavior and experiences have changed. I’m only 31 and I find that incredible. My son will only know it as reality.

Over the last decade, digital means of creative production, access to entertainment, entrepreneurial financing, education and personal communication have become accessible to the developed world – and gradually to the developing world as well. The web is a massive tool chest, with tools being more refined and niche-targeted by the day. Anyone with access to the web can find the tools to get a business off the ground, relying on some combination of the experience of others, free online tutorials, organizational software and social media software.

Here is a hypothetical story to explain what I mean.

Doug and Kathy work at Tim Hortons. One day, they’re chatting over vats of hardened doughnut icing and Kathy sparks an idea for a business. They agree that the first thing they need is a business plan. They go out and purchase a $300.00 netbook so they can access Google’s office tools and Google docs. They map out their approach and arrive at a place where they begin to seek out funding models – a tough one, because few financial institutions in the world will offer two young minimum wage workers enough money to start a company. But who cares! They don’t need the bank!

Doug and Kathy decide to shoot and edit an HD promo video using their phones. They research social financing sites, and then settle on Kickstarter.com. They upload their video and business plans, upload, and wait.

Within a matter of months, 250,000 people believe in their idea enough to donate $1.00 each. With start-up capital in hand, they spend hours on Google, Wikipedia and other social media websites, learning about how to communicate with their audience. They then use YouTube, Facebook and Twitter to reach and grow a consumer base.

This same story is happening everyday, outside the constraints of mainstream business.

When the leaders of our industries are derailed by self interest, and the public has unprecedented access to information, the desire to rely on authorities begins to diminish. Connectivity has allowed the public a chance to turn to authority only when they feel they need it – a huge shift in how society functions.

People will still look for leadership, authority, products to buy, businesses and brands to love. What has changed is the method they employ to seek these things out. We are seeing less of a willingness to accept shadowy claims or call to action “just because.” With so much at their fingertips, consumers and entrepreneurs feel empowered to seek out public opinion for consensus, honesty and insight.

So what sort of impact does this have on thinking about our role as brands and advertisers? This is not a call to end mass advertising or advertising in general, it’s simply one assessment of a very quickly changing market and the dynamics within it. Small-to-medium size brands are seeing much higher levels of success using new communication than larger traditional brands. While larger brands are finding themselves restricted by size, legality or precident, smaller brands finding workarounds to traditional constructs of business and production. In a way, large businesses would benefit from rediscovering how to think small again. 

This is the second in a series of articles based off the presentation “Culture Shock,” which was presented at NXNE Interactive Festival on June 16^th 2011.

Authority is a fraught term. But in its simplest (and most optimistic) interpretation, it represents an individual or governing body that we look to guide our best practices. The police, for example, are given authority to enforce the practical interpretation of the law. In a slightly looser interpretation, a food critic is considered an “authority” on food because of their experienced and practiced palettes.

But the very nature of authority is being eroded. A colleague of mine, Patrick Robinson, points out that civil participation in authoritative organizations (civic associations and the police for example) has helped demystify what were once nearly unquestionable institutions. In addition, the Internet and social media have allowed for broader knowledge share about what our authority figures have been up to. The trouble is, the negative stories far outweigh the positive ones: a senator lying about their credentials about the causation of climate change, the G20 police clashes, corruption in the church – these are our windows into the state of authority. The rampancy of debate have brought the public closer to their icons of authority, and have armed them with enough information to second-guess their conduct. We are quickly realizing that our beacons of authority are just as fallible as anyone.

Social media is therefore a revelation. The shattering of culture and the new multiplicity of voices have sparked the trend of millions of people choosing their own authorities. This is particularly in evidence in the brand world. Brands and brand-appointed “experts” were once the authority on their respective disciplines. Packaged goods like household cleaners now compete with mommy bloggers. Tech companies can play second fiddle to avid Twitterati and self-appointed brand ambassadors. Across the board, there is no lack of people offering up personal insights into product use and customer service. Not only that, but they are being shared by people who live and breathe those lifestyles, and compare products dogmatically and authentically. You might say, that in an age where faith in authorative voices has been shaken, authentic, agenda-free ambassadorship reigns supreme.

This is the first in a series of articles based off the presentation “Culture Shock,” which was presented at NXNE Interactive Festival on June 16^th 2011.

It is no secret to anyone that the Internet and social media have fundamentally affected how society functions, and therefore how industries must shift to meet the demands of their changing consumer landscape. Some companies have fallen, while others have excelled in this new marketing age.

Social media has ushered in seismic shifts in terms of demographics and social and cultural hierarchies. To mind mind, these shifts can be categorized thusly:

- The expansion or shattering of culture
- The decline of authority
- The leveling of the playing field

I see a unique opportunity for both consumers and brands in the convergence of these three factors. In each case, consumers to have greater and more direct influence over the brands they love, while brands have a chance to forge (or regain) a connection to their consumers, a subject I mentioned in an article I wrote a while back.

Each category requires a bit of unpacking. For the next couple weeks, I will address each of the three, and invite you to aggressively detract from or defend my reasoning. Debate is, after all, at the centre of this idea.

Let’s begin with the first one.

The Expansion and Shattering of culture

Picture yourself throwing pebbles into a pool of perfectly still water. This pool represents society, while the pebbles represent perspective or opinion.

As little as 20 years ago, the church, media (TV, Radio, Print ), government and academia were the mainstream sources of perspective. These pebbles would hit the surface of the pool and create a ripple.  These ripples would overlap and mix. Depending on your demographic, you would be exposed to varied amounts of these opinions.

With few major contributors to social dialogue, demographics were easy to read, and easy to serve. But now is a different story. A perfect storm of technology and the impact of globalization have turned everything “we” know about “you” on its head.

With millions of pebbles, demographics are becoming increasingly difficult to read.

The high school analogy

In Grant McCracken’s book “Chief Culture Officer” he talks about a study he did in high schools in North America.

According to him, there were two types of students in the 50s: “squeaky clean, or James Dean.” In the late 80s to mid-90s those categories had broadened a fair bit. In the John Hughes classic “Ferris Bueller’s Day Of,” “the sportos, the motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, wastoids, dweebies [and] dickheads” all “think he’s a righteous dude.” That’s a fair few for sure.

As the world gets “smaller”, or rather as communication over large distances became easier, cultures and opinions mixed, creating more and more subcultures.

Now if you go to a high school in North America you will realize you can no longer pin a student to any one group. The same kid with long hair pulling an ollie at the skate park can very likely also be the captain of the chess team. Social media has accelerated the rate in which culture and opinion is shared, and therefore accelerated how they get splintered and shattered.

At NXNE I asked the audience, by show of hands, “Who has both hip hop and bluegrass on their playlist?” This being a broad range of age groups (14-65+) and professional backgrounds (from authors to marketers), it was still surprising to see that pretty much everyone in the room raised their hand.

But how is this relevant to marketers? Well, consider that line of the brief that outlines “who we are talking to.” While the storytelling behind the target consumer is more closely defined, we are still often trapped in defining demographics in incredibly general terms – “Males, 18-24.” The trouble is, people are much more sophisticated than they used to be. Cultural and behavioural lines have blurred. It requires brands to take a much more personal approach to marketing. It takes research, time and dialogue to get at precise behaviour and motivations. Hence, the role of anthopological and sociological research has become an incredibly important tool for marketers.

What do you think? How do you define your demographics for your clients or your products?

Next week: the role of authority

I have been on the fence about Klout since I first heard of it a few months ago. There is, however, little doubt Klout has been gaining popularity as an ROI tool. So much so, that Fast Company ran an article on how Audi has been using Klout to find key influencers, shower them with swag, and try to leverage them to spread a marketing message. Viscerally opposed to the idea, I tweeted: “I think this is a company trying to rip off brands and consumers with meaningless numbers.”

But why did I react that way?

I concede that Klout and other tools like it can be useful to brands and evangelists. They give you great metrics on your reach and influence on certain subjects. But what is “influence”? Social media is not about reach. But reach is quickly turning into the measurement tool of choice when determining ROI – which smacks of the logic used to determine the efficacy of ad placements in mass advertising.

In my opinion, trying to use old numbers to understand new concepts is not the best approach. Social media is a brand’s opportunity to facilitate word of mouth marketing. Brands shouldn’t be identifying their influencers based on frequency of retweets, but rather how often an individual happily recommends their goods or services. That is the power of social media. To facilitate that conversation, and conversations like that on a grander scale.

The utility of Klout lies in its ability to pick out social resonance. Take my Klout profile for example:

I expected to see social media on that list. But the reality is, I do not believe I have any influence over television, and people that do have influence over such things might not have a high Klout score at all. What it actually tells me is when I tweet about TV, what I am saying is resonating with my audience. Similarly, brands can also use this tool to see they are being heard, and, with their pulse on their audience, connect with them based on their interests, beliefs and concerns.

At NXNE I asked a panel of foodies if one hundred average consumers’ positive opinion of a burger would trump a negative review by Anthony Bourdain. Both the audience and the panel agreed that it did. Key influencers have no more authority than anyone else in the community. Even on a one-on-one basis, you’d still potentially try a burger that your friend loved and Bourdain disliked. Hence, Klout falls down as a tool to convert key influencers into brand evangelists. Someone with 50 friends or followers could have near absolute authority on purchase behavior. Someone with 10000 followers might only sway 50. Who is the key influencer again?

Klout is a tool for determining if what you are saying is connecting with your consumer; it’s not a solution, and not a guide on who should speak for your brand.

The format of consuming entertaining moving picture content is changing. In some ways, the name of this article could be “how to save broadcasters” or “how to save cable providers” or “what the TV industry can learn from the fall of the music industry.

Media companies that focus on TV sales have released articles about how TV is still the preferred method of media consumption. On the other end of the spectrum, digital agencies, and digital conferences prophesize the impending death of entire industries due to their attachment to the format TV provides. The reality lies between these two absolutes. If you were to ask the average person on the street if they watch TV, they would respond in the affirmative. But what if you were to ask them how they consume TV? You’d receive a much more varied response.

We all still consume television content, but we no longer consume it through the same venues, or in the same manner we did 5 years ago.

The TV Industry

Do you run home to watch your favorite show or do you rely on your PVR? Do you consume television through Netflix? Do you buy your TV one episode at a time through iTunes? Do you skip content provided by the larger networks and cable companies and stick to YouTube?

The way that major providers offer up TV is fundamentally inconvenient. The consumer can always find a better way, and no amount of bandwidth taxation will make them forget.

Canadian telecoms should take a lesson from their neighbors to the south. In 2009 Hulu, a Comcast property, surpassed Time Warner Cable for viewership. At that time, Time Warner Cable was the largest TV service provider in the United States. If you are a Time Warner subscriber you now have access to an iPad app that lets you watch shows from your Time Warner service anytime, any place.  These innovations are being received overwhelmingly well by consumers.

The Ad Industry

One of the outcomes from this shift in how we consume TV has been the rise of the long format commercial. Hulu provides its viewership with an option: watch this 2 minute long format spot from brand A at the beginning of your show, or watch 4 – 30 seconds spots interrupting your programming. As it turns out, 61% of consumers prefer long format.

If anything, this should prove how online TV consumption gives advertisers even more opportunity to stretch their creative legs. But there are other examples. Executions like Goodby’s YouTube-based “Wario Shake” and J.K. Rowling’s recent announcement demonstrate the elasticity of long format video content. Flash developers have been using cue-points in video for years to add more layers of content to video.

Whether we call it “TV” or not is inconsequential. The value of the term is shifting anyway. Once we decouple the idea of “TV” from the screen and service providers, a wealth of opportunities present themselves. I can’t wait to see how the next generation of ad creatives channel their enthusiasm for motion entertainment into new, intriguing content formats.

The Allegory of the Cave centres around a group of prisoners that have spent their lives completely disconnected from the outside world. They live chained to a wall, assigning meaning to shadows cast on the blank walls they face. The only one who is able to determine that the shadows are not absolutely real is the prisoner that escapes the cave. He returns to share his experience of new truth. It’s a Greek story, so you can probably imagine that he ended up paying for it in a nasty way!

I think of this parable when I think about the communication revolution that is upon us. People in any industry with a “steady as she goes” mentality are the ones who are the ones staring at the shadows on the walls. Those who have escaped know inherently that you can’t just add “digital” to a list of media. Not anymore.

I’m treading familiar territory when I state that we live in an on-demand digital culture. It has struck hard at the music industry and film community. My family’s TV consumption comes through our computers, iPads and Netflix on my PS3. It’s entirely on demand. So much so that my boys have pretty much stopped watching “TV” entirely.

That brings us to the business of persuasion. I previously wrote about the concept of on-demand advertising. While we can’t fully satisfy the “when we want it” theory, I believe there are ways to implement the “where we want it.” I’ll share some of my own conclusions, and I hope that it doesn’t get me killed like that guy in the cave.

1. Creative alone cannot save you.

The current thought is that the “big idea” is the most important part of a successful campaign. The trouble is, not all ideas can play well in any medium. Creative concepts are something to add to the marketing mix. They still play a huge role in audience outreach, but they aren’t a solve-all superhero. You can only make a full emotional connection by understanding where your audience is and what they are doing.

2. Advertising’s new role is to make a social connection with the audience.
That isn’t to say that this is an article about how everyone should be on Facebook. But if advertising is intended to win a consumer over to the point of recommending a product or service to a friend, you realize that the facilitation of word of mouth is just as important as the brand message.

3. There’s no such thing as general audiences.
Connecting emotionally is important, but nuanced behaviour is just as important. As advertisers, our first order of business should be to break down our “demographics.” We can’t lump 19-35 year old males into one group.  There is more than one cultural thread that ties people to a brand.  What we need to do before any campaign is find one or two cultural threads that tie that group together.  And it can’t be something broad like “hockey” as every region or group celebrates larger cultural phenomena in different ways.  It needs to be more fundamental than that.

4. Everyone is creative.

According to Seth Godin’s book “Linchpin: Are you Indispensable?”, our creativity is trained out of us in our school systems. As children all we have is our imagination, and all we do is build and break.  Create and destroy.  Well, at least here in Canada that is no longer the case.  From my own experiences, I believe that children are no longer taught compliance and regurgitation but are encouraged to think critically and creatively.  The result is an emerging workforce of creative and critical thinkers. Agencies that embrace this are given a real competitive advantage.

Everyone in an agency – from creative teams and studio to strategists – have a responsibility to think about how what they are making will be used, and whether it will create the real social connections that our brands need.

What we want consumers to “take away” should be secondary to taking the time to delve into who we are talking to and what they want to talk about. When your consumer feels like you are willing to listen to them, talk about their hobbies, desires and organizations they want to support, they will be much more open to hearing about the  marketing message of their brand.

We need to educate and work closely with our clients to help them understand the changing landscape of society, the market and communication.  These shifts affect way more than advertising.  They will affect every industry and every market, as the power behind communication and distribution spreads.

Before I get started, I want to be clear: there isn’t only one way to leverage social media for a brand, but it applies to all brands.

In the 1950s, a man named Sam Walton ran a general discount store called Walton’s Five and Dime.  Sam had a simple strategy, and with it had built a good track record for running successful retail establishments: undercut his competitors on price, and deliver unparalleled customer service.

See, Sam knew that the key to retail in the 50s and 60s was personal relationships. Barbers, doctors and general store owners would be on a first-name basis with their core customers. It sounds a little “Leave it to Beaver,” but honest-to-goodness understanding of the customer was integral to business. Sam got that. That’s why Wal-Mart has greeters.

Anyone who runs a business still ostensibly knows that strong relationships are good for business. Even on a B2B basis, sharing a few beers with a client now and again breeds a familiarity that allows both parties to have uncomfortable conversations at a later date, without damaging the business relationship. But as brands continue to explode in size, a meaningful relationship with the end consumer can be challenging to sustain.  It’s not just about the relationship at point of purchase.

Every one of us has felt railroaded by the dreaded “I’m sorry sir, that is our policy.” Anyone who has spent any time in the service industry intimately knows the effect those words can have on a consumer who is obviously looking for a solution. When a client of ours has a problem, our first order of business is to solve it.  Sometimes that means bending or even breaking internal policies around timelines, billing or scheduling. In fact, while I was Director of Production, a flagged issue was met with a question: “Is the client happy?”

For lack of a better term “shit happens.” But while the shit gets fixed, it’s still possible to ensure that your client feels taken care of.

If a consumer has a strong relationship with a brand, they will be more likely to excuse a poor experience and maintain the relationship.

So how do brands build that relationship?  Social Media is currently the most powerful tool, and is also the easiest to implement. It’s not just about flipping the marketing funnel. While Joseph Jaffe advocates leveraging key influencers through social media to maximize your marketing budgets, I would suggest that to be a top-down approach to a bottom-up medium. The “socialness” of Social Media comes from the consumers, who would be far happier with access to key influencers within the company.

Let’s look at two brands that have taken similar approaches to maintaining their consumer relationships: ironically, Apple and Adobe. Apple has recently been named the most valuable brand in the world, and yet they seem to avoid the ire of the anti-capitalism movement.  Why? They have Steve Jobs. Jobs seems bulletproof, saying what he wants, when he wants with little consequence. However secretive he may be about his product, Steve is accessible. Anyone can email him and anything can happen in the industry, and chances are Jobs will have a quip in response. Sure, it’ll likely be the type of thing that would send most PR managers onto the ledge, but it’s a genuine connection with his brand stewards and loyal customers.

Meanwhile, Adobe has a very liberal approach to corporate-consumer relations, handing their key influencers the keys to the city. Brand managers to evangelists, advocates to community forums, all have influence over the offerings the company produces. Adobe has even plucked some their influencers and handed them jobs.

Both of these companies have developed a zealot-like brand following, which frankly makes the clash between these two silicon giants that much more entertaining.

All brands can achieve this level of relationship with their consumers with two keys strategies:

1)   Allow direct access

It could be a Twitter account or blog posts, but the heads of departments, and executive members of a company should participate in social media. These senior members of your company should be prepared to have real conversations with their clients and consumers.

2)   Empower outreach

Create a group of community managers within your company, and/or hire an agency or PR firm with real social media experience. Then have key influencers in your company meet with these managers on a regular basis, and give them real seniority to influence the direction of the company.

Some might think giving consumers that much access to your company could be dangerous, but we aren’t talking about divulging business strategies. What we are talking about is forging the same respectful relationship that a consumer might have at a Mom & Pop establishment. Put the human face back onto your company or corporation. Remind the average consumer that your company is a collection of people, and not a large, faceless machine.

That is how social media can be used for brands, and why all brands should use it.  It is the ability for large brands to develop personal relationships with consumers, and to create a brand loyalty that transcends expected points of interaction.