The world of social media allows pundits, citizens and even the neighborhood traffic cop to position themselves as an expert. Often, experts can claim authority, write manifestos and command attention, even though their thoughts are based on opinion rather than fact. Social media enables virtual gurus.

In many ways, this aspect of social media makes it an attractive communications option for business. They can discuss matters with their stakeholders directly and leverage their subject matter expertise to build value. Consider that Bob Lutz started GM’s Fastlane blog so he could cut out the media and talk directly to consumers.

At the same time, businesses who are beginning to explore social media forms and possible consultants will find many vapor gurus. For example yesterday, Chip Griffin stated that blogs don’t need RSS to be successful. Or that you don’t need comments to make a blog. In that case, publish a web 1.0 newsletter on your web site.

A blog without an RSS feed limits itself from potential viral activity and long-term growth. It’s a foolish marketing move to publish without providing as many distribution mechanisms as possible. Otherwise an organization loses the ability to update customers in a form they want. Consider how Cisco has seen a nine times increase in PR readership using RSS.

On the comments front, Griffin cites Marc Andressen’s blog as an example. Others use Seth Godin. Both of these figures are national celebrities who command attention by simply saying something. Nowhere in Griffin’s comments discussion does he offer an example of a small to medium or even a large corporate social media initiative that’s been successful without comments. Just the rock stars.

Takeaways

More than ever vapor gurus stress the need to deliver cases studies and real world examples to back opinions up. Chip’s column sparked great discussion, but there were no examples of everyday companies who have had great successes using his suggestions. His suggestions may be correct or demonstrate that there is no black or white truths (just shades of gray), but where are the proof points? For the record, Chip has Fortune 500 experience and says he will back his post up with examples. We look forward to it.

Businesses who don’t want to be perceived or challenged as a vapor guru need to back their manifestos and opinions up with facts. This is no different than traditional marketing or public relations, which should use a healthy dose of case studies to build credibility.

In addition, businesses considering social media consultants should demand to see actual real world experiences and successes. Perhaps that was the greatest aspect of last week’s B.L. Ochman column about discerning the real consultant from the vapor guru. In that column, B.L. published links to several case studies, which she has graciously agreed to allow us to republish here.

These case studies will be added to the Case Studies tab on Now Is Gone over the weekend (Thanks, B.L.):

o Hugh Macleod at gapingvoid has done a spectacular job of marketing Stormhoek wine entirely through blogs and social networking.

o Crispin Porter, who created phenomenal, viral Subservient Chicken for Burger King, but who never did anything as successful, clever or interesting since.

The site has garnered about 14 million unique visitors and 396 million hits to date. It went viral in a matter of hours, simply being emailed to a few friends, who sent it to a few friends, etc. etc. Adweek has a case study here

o ITToolbox, who’ve grown their social network for IT professionals into multi-million business with more than $8 million in ad sales.
o Brains on Fire, who created the Fiskateers for Fiskars, who make crafting tools. Branded mentions of Fiskars products are up more than 400% on a per-week basis since the program began. The program, which now has more than 1,200 members has successfully de-commoditized Fiskars tools and made crafters value them beyond price.

o B.L. Ochman (hey, this is no place for modesty.) I’ve created the first Up Your Budget Treasure Hunt for Budget Car Rental in 2005, the first ever blog-based viral marketing campaign, promoted entirely through bloggers and blog advertising - with no traditional marketing whatsoever.

The results: one million unique visits to the site, 2,000 registered treasure hunters, and over 10 million page views in only four weeks. The clue videos were downloaded a total 43,000 times. There were 19.9 million blog advertising impressions at an average cost of 33 cents (Compared to $1.62 per click on AOL Instant Messenger).

Since then, campaigns BL Ochman & Company have created for clients include:
o Ethics Crisis, where visitors can anonymously confess the most unethical thing they ever did in business and be rated by other readers;
o Clutter Control Freak Blog for stacksandstacks.com, which achieved 1,500 daily uniques within a month of launch;
o Wife in the Fast Lane, a contest for Simon & Schuster author Karen Quinn;
o a blog advertising campaign for American Greetings that achieved clickthru rates as high as 5.7%
o and a soon-to-be-launched how-to blog for a Fortune 1000 fiber maker.

o Oddcast, who’ve produced the wonderful Monk-e-mail for careerbuilder.com, and who recycles their technology into a variety of effective interactive campaigns for a variety of clients.

P.S. Both Now Is Gone and the reviews tab have case studies for my company and personal experiences.

P.S.S. I do not see myself as a guru, and noted this in a recent post on the Buzz Bin.

An actual day-to-day practitioner of social media, a community manager, Connie Bensen reviewed the book: “It’s a must read if you’re considering implementing a social media program or already have an established one. It was nice to nod in agreement with the ideas that I’m already practicing. And there were times I found myself pondering the overviews.”

Connie’s comments meant more to me than most of the reviews to date because she’s on the firing line.  It’s great to get an acknowledgement like this. Thanks, Connie!

Chip Griffin from Media Bullseye reviewed the book: Geoff Livingston has successfully authored a book that many communicators new to the social media game will find to be a useful introduction to the techniques needed to thrive. Recommended, with reservations. Chip’s primary reservations were with our blogger relations suggestions.

Finally, A-Lister Chris Brogan reviewed the book and says, “I just finished reading this excellent book by Geoff Livingston and Brian Solis. It’s chock full of interesting points, good case studies from the real world, supporting posts and references, and a great deal of useful information. It’s packed into a very slim volume, perfect for those who have a lot to do and little time to do it, and yet excellent in dispensing the important information to be covered.”

Astroturf - a campaign that cloaks the efforts of an interested entity under the guise of genuine grass-roots public response.

It’s not easy being green. Fake green is easier, until it is exposed and you get “brown.”

There are many others who have written about poor astroturfing efforts - from Walmart Across America to Whole Foods’ “Harobed”. The perpetrators of these efforts to influence through guile have had their hands appropriately slapped, and business goes on. I’m not out to excuse what they’ve done, but rather to explain the origin of the impulse to pull the rug over the mud.

The News of Democracy

In my day job, I see the occasional article critical of my employer. I also monitor articles critical of others in the non-profit sector. And often, the interesting piece isn’t in the story itself, but rather in the comment stream tied to the story. Typically, you’ll find a few comments of shock, horror, dismay, or sympathy. Increasingly, we’re seeing comments that either refer to “facts” or allegations that were not present in the original news item. Sometimes they link to a blogpost, but more often they are unattributed and are posted by an unsigned party.

This isn’t the work of trained PR professionals who are using every tool (and buzzword) to leverage their clients story. This is a reaction from ordinary people who happen to have passionate feelings about an issue for one reason or another. And yet they don’t sign their names, as though there would be some repercussion for owning that end of a conversation.

In a few of these instances, I’ve known enough of the backstory to realize these “facts” could only come from someone very close to the incident. They are trying to introduce information that is not presented in the story, and that only an interested party with an agenda might know. No PR person involved - just homespun astroturfing at play.

Citizen Reporters?

I do know that newspapers have been slow, measured, and tortured in their response to the internet. Slow and measured seems to be working, as they adjust their business models and editorial schedules to meet the new expectations in the marketplace. The ‘tortured’ part refers to the begrudging nature of loosening the grip of editorial control, by allowing comments. Comment streams on news sites can be a great way to create a sense of community, to increase participation, and to generate additional page views. But it also creates a new backchannel that doesn’t fall within the traditional editorial function, because the community of blog commenters don’t expect the same level of scrutiny the reporters would get.

It’s an interesting decision. Do we allow anonymous comments? Keep an email address on file? Heavily moderated? Who has the time?

In the comment streams I see, alleged “facts” are being dropped into the comments without any attribution. They are being debated just as rigorously as the items specifically cited by the reporter. And rarely is there an admonition to the jury to “strike that last remark,” even though the question has been asked, and the damage done.

The Enemy Within

No one needed to teach these people how to twist and manipulate a comment stream. And I’m not talking about the majority of civic-minded people who want to express themselves - just those who have an additional vested interest, and are pretending to be bystanders. The impulse is within us all.

It’s not necessarily borne of a desire to manipulate. Nor is it shame, or trying to duck the consequences of sticking up for the point in contention. It’s a desire to belong, and have others agree.

If “Jeff” has a personal stake in a news item about a family member, he just wants to have his viewpoint represented. However, if he posts as “Jeff,” then he’s a lone voice. If he posts as “Bryan”, well at least there is someone else agreeing with him out there. And just maybe, “Bryan” can attract some followers too.

We see it in blogs, and in message boards, and we suspect it but often can’t prove it. People logging in multiple times under different names, and carrying forth a sad conversation with themselves. It’s comforting to see agreement, and to know that others who read will feel moved by the level of dialogue and support. It’s borne of a sense of belonging.

Newspaper sites can do us all a favor by recognizing this reality. Yes, it takes a little extra time to moderate the comments. Yes, it is an additional hurdle to ask for an email address for all commenters. Yes, it’s even more time to ensure that the email address is valid. Once past those steps, you could still allow for anonymity, but knowing there is a real person to reach out to if there are additional questions. Those steps alone would cut down on the imposition of neuroses on comment threads. They would also yield editorial gains for reporters who might use the comments to find ancillary sources for follow up stories.

It’s in the DNA

The impulse to Astroturf is in our DNA. It’s always been there, lodged in the part of our brain that makes us social creatures. If we don’t recognize that, we run the risk of enabling non-genuine activity on the sites and communities we build.

This lack of vetting is what places “lowly bloggers” so far down the food chain of news. It takes time and effort to build a reputation for accuracy, neutrality, and consistency. Yet the newspaper sites - by mimicing the conversation of blogs without vetting the content - threaten to sever one of the remaining advantages they own over the citizen journalist.

Chris Brogan and B.L. Ochman had outstanding posts last week providing guidance to companies looking for social media consultants. In B.L.’s post, she writes, “How do you tell the experts from the snake oil salesmen?”

I cannot tell you how timely these posts are. Marketing organizations are increasingly interested in social media, and to keep their businesses going, marketing and PR consultants are hanging the social media shingle out their doors. But they have no or little experience, and have not done the hard work to learn their lessons.

Here in the Washington region, many PR and marketing firms claim to offer social media services. Consider some of my experiences with some of them over the past 6 mos:

• Competitor offering full suite of social media does coffee. We offer to train them, they say they don’t need our help. Then competitor blogs the conversation — without permission. Competitor only updates blog once a month, little readership, and a technorati authority of 1.
• A second graphic design firm promises a blog template, but has not heard of WordPress
• Local “outsourced CMO” suddenly turns into a blogging expert… With no successes or track record.

The list can go on and on…
Separating the Wheat from the Chaffe

Some folks believe newcomers shouldn’t be allowed to the table. I disagree. Social media tools can be learned in several months, but it has to be processed and experienced. Most folks get out there and participate on their own name before applying lessons to others. Don’t let a consultant experiment on your dollar. Ask good questions to discern whether or not they’ve done it.

It’s a mistake to accept someone as an expert if they have a blog or have written an article or two. Consider my local competitor that blogged our conversation. They were recently featured in a top PR trade pub offering an “expert opinion” on video social media. You have to dig deeper.

B.L. suggested working with:

- People with clients who actually pay them to create social media campaigns.
- People whose ROI-driven campaigns actually produce traffic and sales.
- People who create campaigns that are more than a clueless ad agency’s flash in the pan, gimmick, soon forgotten stunt or just plain dim.

In addition, you can augment the initial qualification process with the following:

• Some social media campaigns are designed to brand and educate as opposed to creating sales. What kind of measures where used? Dive deep and ensure the conversation was predominantly positive.
• If they only talk about blogging, drop them. Social media is much more than just blogging.
• Similarly if they sell Facebook apps as a panacea, stay away from them.
• Ask them if they’ve heard of second-tier social network services like Utterz, Seesmic and Ning. A blank face means they are not staying on top of trends.
• Everyone claims to be successful. Look at how they treat their own social media efforts. Do they have a Facebook profile with significant numbers of friends? Successful Second Life or Twitter initiative? Where is their blog ranked on Technorati? Is anyone linking to them, and if so, positively? Again, dive deep.

Lastly, before signing on a consultant, examine their clients’ social media efforts in depth, and demand client references. Don’t ask, “What did you think?” Get into the campaign and find out what really happened and how it impacted their business.

P.S. For those of you who do not know B.L. and Chris, BL is the #1 ranked female marketing blogger on the Ad Age 150. Chris is one of the first established bloggers (since 1998), and a premier social media mind.

P.S.S. Yes, I know Technorati is not a precise measurement tool. Radian6 and BuzzLogic are better services if you can pay for them. Know of a better free tool? Tell us below.

Frank Gruber interviewed Brian Solis today about the book, and social media in general. It’s got lots of great insights from two of the best minds in social media today. Check it out!

Also, if you haven’t perused Somewhat Frank yet, get over there now. Frank’s social media insights are just amazing, and his Tech Cocktail events are always packed! I had the opportunity to meet him last month, and I can tell you Frank is a bright and kind person who makes time for his fans.

Twice the fun, Technosailor’s Aaron Brazell reviewed Now Is Gone today. Here’s some of what he had to say…

Overall, the book is brilliant. I’m glad this is not “yet another book on blogging”. It doesn’t provide a how to. It doesn’t provide options for choosing your platform or describe how to subscribe to RSS.

It’s obvious that this book was written mostly for executives. This is not a bad thing as Executives are the ones steering companies and the reality is that if companies don’t embrace social media, they will be left behind. It is presented in a very philosophical way, describing the challenges that companies face today when it comes to the social media landscape, brand management and public relations.

Thanks, Aaron! Full review here.

We had two more strong reviews this week from Communication Overtones Blogger Kami Huyse and Valley PR Blog’s Linda VandeVrede. We are also featured on Rohit Bhargarva’s Ultimate Marketing Bookstore, which raises money for DonorsChoose.org (a site which allows teachers to submit funding proposals to ask for help doing something they don’t normally get the funding for).

Thank you to Kami, Linda and Rohit. If you are thinking about purchasing Now Is Gone, please support Rohit in his effort. There is no additional cost.

Criticism

Since one of the first tenets of the book is not to control the message, we’re going to vet some criticisms that have surfaced in the reviews and in conversation. Here are the five criticisms which I have found most interesting and, in some cases, spot on (image credit David Airey graphic design from criticism post).

1) Jeremy Pepper had a couple of interesting points. First, he didn’t see Crayon’s Coca Cola Virtual Thirst campaign as that great a success (case study, p. 108).

This campaign was a very high visibility effort that reversed a very negative approach to a prior Mentos/Diet Coke incident. Previously, Coke tried to clamp down on user generated videos and posts (instead of embracing them). So when Coke initiated it’s Virtual Thirst campaign it received a ton of blog ink as a successful approach towards embracing social media. That’s when the book was being written so I included it.

As to the actual results of the campaign, we don’t know what they are. The campaign just wrapped up. Did Second Lifers really embrace Coke’s virtual thirst social media? I’d have to ask my sources at crayon and C.C. Chapman if they could provide some measurement.

2) On page 127-128, I wrote up the relatively new Nikon D80 blogger relations program as a fiasco because of the many negative posts and ensuing controversy the program caused. Shel Holtz was also quoted as saying the blog discussion wasn’t the conversation that Nikon wanted.

Jeremy Pepper noted that the Nikon D80 program turned out to be a pretty good success. I have to agree with him. Tom Biro and crew did successfully get the D80 into the marketplace. When I was at Blog Orlando last September I noticed every blogger except Chris Heuer had a Nikon. Then I saw Tom speak. It seems a lot of negativity was actually jealousy and envy. And everyone really did want a Nikon. Kudos to Biro for a job well done.

Jeremy added, “if you condemn the D80 program, you eliminate any way for any PR firm to do any blog outreach and review programs. There have been worse (Acer Ferrari/Vista) and some better (Nokia).

“I was at the LiveJournal party this week, and a well-respected blogger and photographer said to me, ‘You know, that Nikon program was great. People see you out at events, and they know you are shooting with a Nikon camera and that you take great photos.’”

3) Nikon is a perfect segway to criticism from Chris Thilk, Biro’s comrade in arms, on the Open Dialogue blog. Chris has several criticisms in what has been the most lukewarm review to date (he still recommended Now Is Gone). The one that’s interesting from my viewpoint is this comment on blogger relations:

At one point Livingston warns public relations practitioners that if they send out a heads-up to bloggers and that pitch does not result in the story being written up then it’s a failure and they need to scrap the entire program since it’s obviously not adding value to the larger community.

While I agree that PR people should approach bloggers carefully (that’s why it helps to have someone who knows the community and that language) and that pitches need to be individually crafted to make the story as valuable to the blogger as possible I don’t think failure to achieve pick-up is a sign of a bad program… Since blogging is so highly personal - even if I’m not blogging about personal matters - sometimes I just can’t get excited about a story that would normally be right up my alley. Bloggers are moody, something that occasionally renders any hard and fast rules about engagement moot.

I absolutely agree… if the pitcher is an experienced blogger relations pro like Chris or Tom. However, because the book is written for executives and entrepreneurs that have almost zero to basic experiences in social media, I stand by the original statement. It’s a primer, not a detailed how-to guide.

Folks that are new to social media don’t know how to pitch bloggers, and when they do, they end up in positions like these. Encouraging them to send a “good pitch” to bloggers when they cannot judge what good is? You may as well send a lamb to its own slaughter.

OK, both Chris and Tom have a lot of great value to add to the marketplace. It would be excellent if they wrote a white paper on blogger relations. If they do, I promise to promote it on both Now Is Gone and the Buzz Bin.

4) Debbie Weil and Kami Huyse pointed out the writing was rough at points and could use some more editing. They are correct, we made a conscious decision to sacrifice quality and rush the book to market so the information would be relevant.

The book was finished at the end of June and sent to print just four months later. The last chapter was literally written two days before the book went to press. Also, please keep in mind Bartleby is a small press that may publish eight to 12 titles a year. Their resources are not as deep as Putnam.

Was it worth it? Having just read Meatball Sundae, yes. Seth’s book is better written, but the information is much older than Now Is Gone and it won’t be released until after Christmas. Now Is Gone is rougher, but much more current, and has been out for a month now. Meatball Sundae is a good book that will be read by many, many more folks, but I believe on a case by case basis Now Is Gone will have more pragmatic impact.

Even then, the book will not have much value in two years. Trying to pin down a primer on social media is like trying to down a running cheetah with a bee-bee gun.

5) “Anyone can write a book.” “Writing a book is the new MBA.” Comments like these are just based in ignorance.

Think I’m wrong? Go for it. Write a book, try to find an agent, and get it published by a real publisher, large or small. See how hard it really is.

And for the record, getting my MA at Georgetown was a lot easier than the 15 year trek from my first manuscript to my first book as primary author. As I told Ike last August:

I’ve been trying to get a book published since the early nineties. Finally did it. No one will look at the decade plus of stops and starts, and the thousands upon thousands of hours practicing the craft. They’ll only look at the event.

Four months later, the accuracy of this quote haunts me.

Tomorrow morning AccuQuote, Cisco Systems, The Coca-Cola Company, Dell, Gemstar-TV Guide, General Motors, Kaiser Permanente, Microsoft, Nokia, SAP, Starwood Hotels & Resorts and Wells Fargo will announce the formations of “The Blog Council.” These top global brands want to promote best practices in corporate blogging.

Issues the Council says it will address:

• How do global brands manage blogs in more than one language?
• What do you do when 2000 employees have personal blogs?
• What is the role of the corporate brand in a media landscape increasingly geared toward consumer-generated media?
• What is the correct way to engage and respond to bloggers who write about your company?

Here’s an interesting statement from the release:

The Blog Council exists as a forum for executives to meet one another in a private, vendor-free environment and share tactics, offer advice based on past experience, and develop standards-based best practices as a model for other corporate blogs.

That fascinates me. It tells me companies want a discussion without biased commentary from PR firms, bloggers and consultants (like me) that want their business. And at the same time maybe they want to talk about things like when to get support from consultants and PR firms, how to “manage” disgruntled consumers, astroturfing incidents etc., without catching a bunch of grief about being unethical.

In a separate FAQ document, the council stated, “Big companies have unique issues when blogging. There isn’t really any other forum that focuses on the needs of this group.”

I admit that’s probably true. And it’s probably a great idea to vet best practices. Some companies probably feel safer doing that in private.

Is it a good thing or a bad thing that these discussions are taking place behind closed doors? Are we back to Command and Control? One thing is clear. Transparency is not going to be at a premium.

A word of caution to the Council. It would be really unfortunate if this council produced a questionable community management principles document. Please be sure to vet best practices with enough members of the communities you want to manage.

As Shel said this morning, “Don’t pitch the conversational network. Join it. Start your own blog… Be part of the conversation so that we bloggers can see who you are and what yo do and what you have to say.”

(Disclaimer: I had already picked the topic of this week’s column before Geoff wrote the Takeaways from Beacon post. It’s not that I’m out to beat up Facebook - it’s that they make it so damned easy.)

A couple of weeks ago, I outlined four very simple ways to win an internet argument. Cast your opponent as one of the following, and thereby carry the moral justification to ignore anything further he has to say:

• You are Evil
• You are Greedy
• You are Stupid
• You are Sheep

Obviously, I was mocking the way most poor debaters sink to inconsequential ad hominem attacks as a way to disprove a statement. However, once a pattern of behavior becomes apparent, you have to ask yourself if one of the above isn’t possible.

Identifying Mistakes

One of the scariest aspects of embarking on Social Media is the lack of defined rules. There are places where you can bone up on the theory, but the handbooks for various applications are often outdated by new sites and technologies. Also, some of the primers that have “great advice” advocate unethical behavior.

The Social Media landscape is still - despite what anyone tells you - a frontier. The laws of the land are not engraved on stone tablets, but are instead enforced “by the community.” Well, by Deity, it sure would be easier to follow the rules if we knew what they were, and weren’t prone to shifting all the time. Social Media is for now a field of Wild West Justice - a place where self-appointed sheriff’s can issue their own black hats and wanted posters. Hence, the proclivity to do what one wants.

Why do they do it?

There are many examples of Social Media bungles, from the aforementioned Facebook Beacon experiment, to fake blogs, to social sites that hijack your address book and spam others. All very different lapses, but are they symptoms of something larger? I put the question to several people I know:

CALL FOR INPUT: What is the source of Social Media bungling? Greed? Stupidity? Bad intentions? Lack of defined standards? Or other?

The results were mixed.

Greedy, Greedy, Greedy

Jason Falls: Brands/Companies/Advertisers thinking communication is a one-way street.

Mike Keliher: Bungling by businesses/businesspeople? It’s the inability (for now, at least) to think past one’s own office. Self-centered. That’s the root cause, at least in large part, for much of what’s generally referred to as “typical marketing BS.”

Susan Getgood: Thinking people are stupid and won’t connect a and b. trying to assert control when the better course is to start conversation.

Uninformed?

Peter Shankman: not thinking before posting is the source of social media bungling.

Evan Keller: Depends on the situation, but often good intentions not completely thought through. Ignorance.

Dave Fleet: I’d say a lack of understanding of social media & its implications… e.g. trying to retain tight control, no transparency, etc.

Rob La Gesse: Laziness, lack of concern for your customer, failing to realize who your customer is. Add in a dash or arrogance and greed

Other

Todd Defren: Social Media bungling stems from a desire to find short-cuts where none exist.

Rachel Luxemburg: There is no one source; everyone makes mistakes for different reasons. Lack of universal standards is a big one though.

The big problem

And this brings us back to what may become a real problem for Social Media. If the “Gold Rush” to cash in on these technologies comes too quickly, we may end up with a totally lawless frontier. Those who intentionally set forth to manipulate and misrepresent might just yield enough short-term gains to make the enterprise profitable for others to emulate. Sure, the “gains” disappear as the deception is exposed. But it’s not like you invested the time it takes to build a real community.

This is a piece I genuinely worry about - the ROI of Negative Social Media. I’m not yet sure what that formula looks like, but if we see the same rogues’ gallery committing the same offenses repeatedly, we can only conclude that someone has figured a way to game communities and prosper on the sly.

The only way we avoid that scenario is if enough community members reject the manipulation and vote with their feet. And quite frankly, I’m not so certain enough have the gumption. This is the Wild West, after all, and we’re making our own Cowboy Code every time we click to buy. Every unchallenged encroachment - no matter how insidious or ignorant it might be - is an invitation to continue. We will get the web we deserve.

Last week’s Beacon crisis for Facebook was prototypical business failure in the social media world. Why? Business was placed before community. But social media is built on the premise of people and communities congregating together to discuss ideas. Business opportunity must be by product of that, not inserted into the conversation as Beacon was.

Facebook garnered significant traction this year, growing by tens of millions of users, and establishing itself as the hottest social network. Since then, the company has sought to do more than open its network to application developers, and has taken steps to monetize its communities. Steps to add Microsoft and a new Beacon application-driven SocialAds program have suddenly drawn the angst of its many users.

Facebook’s Beacon program worked by notifying friend networks when someone purchased a product from a participating company. At first, these notifications were executed without the permission of their end-users creating a huge uproar in the national media and with social media stars like Forrester Analyst Charlene Li, whose own personal privacy was sacrificed by Beacon.

Dissent grew and Facebook users began to organize and MoveOn took formal issue with the social network. When the roar outgrew the value, Facebook yielded.

Now users have to opt-in to the program before notifications are sent to their friend networks. However, Facebook will still “archive” sales information between Beacon advertisers and the network to give users another “opportunity to click ‘OK’ to publish.” Users cannot stop information traveling between Facebook and Beacon partners.

But the damage may have already been done. “Personally I’m having lots of trouble with Facebook but Facebook doesn’t care about people who have more than 5,000 friends unless they can figure out a way to monetize us,” said Robert Scoble in response to an official statement from Facebook on Beacon. “Everytime I look at Facebook I am reminded of how little Facebook cares about me. So, I care less and less about Facebook every day.

Community First

At the heart of this issue is monetization of social media. Social media is exciting, but at the same time direct monetary return on investment for some social networks and content creators has been elusive. Databases and further growth of semantic web applications allows networks to leverage users information to serve up customized ads, or tell others exactly what the person purchases. In return, monetization occurs.

The Beacon launch highlighted a critical privacy issue and the definite affirmation that users must give their permission before data can be used. Further it clearly reaffirms that marketing in social media environments often comes from within the community itself. Often ROI is a by- product of community participation as opposed to hard transactional advertising.

Goodwill of Greater Washington created a virtual fashion show and blog to highlight outfits created from donated goods. This new take on vintage generates more than 5 percent click through to the company’s online store. Users see the outfits, watch the show, get excited and want to know more.

Yes, social media marketing needs to be monetized either directly or indirectly. When the dust settles any marketing organization must remembers its most valuable asset is its community members. Social media is driven by people banded together to form communities, not by technology or informal networks. When community is sacrificed for dollars, organizations lose both. No community equals no transactions.