We’re defining the tactic – email, social media, trade shows, conferences, PR – without clear goals.

As Josh Cline wrote, we’re putting the cart before the horse – running forward before we have the goals or a plan.

It’s not a traditional or digital marketing divide. Companies are going to trade shows and looking for MARCOM pros with trade show experience without knowing what trade shows can do for your business and defining what they want to get out of the trade show. They return thousands of dollars in the red and with their pockets stuffed full of business cards and some touristy trinkets. They’re looking for email marketers while buying email addresses, and wonder what their newsletter has done for them, and they are seeking people to create and manage Facebook pages before they even conducting a POST Analysis and defining whether Facebook is the place that their customers are and can achieve your business goals. Then they wonder why they haven’t bought.

This is the way things have been for a long time – except the explosion in digital media and the ability to measure goals immediately and easily with built-in analytics make the status-quo even less acceptable today as businesses can measure their progress with more precision and speed than ever before.

Social media is a perfect example in which many have gotten it wrong. Deciding that their competitive strategy is “social marketing” or hiring for social media without understand what it can (and can not) do for you will not bring results. The age of experimentation is over.

Recently, I’ve seen an explosion in jobs for “social media managers” that don’t define what they expect “social media” to do for the business. Social media is a tool like a telephone – it can be used for all sorts of purposes and there are many different ways and goals it can achieve – advertising, cold calling for leads and sales, customer support, market research, etc.  Are they looking for thought leadership and new website visitors from a blog, leads from LinkedIn (and that webinar or white paper), a Facebook community to energize their existing fan-base, a viral boost of brand awareness from the funny video, or a conversation with their target audience? These are all different goals which can be done by different personalities and have to be implemented differently.

While it’s important to have dedicated staff who knows how to use the tools, it’s even more important to first define your goals.

If you don’t define your goals first, you won’t get results. 63% of B2B companies are still not generating leads from social media – a goal for virtually any company that needs to drive revenue – most likely because social media is siloed and not integrated and because they haven’t built a program to get leads that includes social media.

Social media is mature and has proven results (Facebook itself is 8 years old, the Web is 20 years old, and online forums are even older) that you should be getting a tangible ROI from an approach that includes social media – whether leads, customer support, market research, or whatever other goal that you define. If you don’t have the KPI, don’t pre-determine the tactic. The KPI must be defined in order to generate the ROI.  At the same time, approaches and tactics are very different depending on one’s goals. A plan that aims to generate “buzz” – i.e. brand awareness among a mass group of people – is going to look very different than a plan whose goal is leads.

While the potential and capability is there, because companies aren’t defining what they are trying to achieve and the business goals defined by the C-suite aren’t adequately communicated to middle- and lower-managers in the trenches, ROI is not seen.

As Scott Opplinger wrote, “They might not get the results they want because they had no idea what results they were trying to accomplish in the first place and in most cases had no clearly defined method for measuring those results had they defined clear goals.”

Before determining what tactics you want, first map out:

• Your business goals and the timeline you want to achieve it – for example 20% sales growth in 3 months, 33% more leads, 1,000 downloads a month, 10% reduced support costs, increase in conversion from leads to sales, more software renewals, 10 evangelists to write about you a month, etc.
• Develop your benchmark and your goal
• Develop the roadmap of how to achieve these goals – the different mix of tactics that will help achieve them, including KPIs to measure your progress
• Measure your steps periodically and adjust accordingly.

In order to be realized, your business goals require channels and tools such as social media, email marketing, media and analyst relations, SEO, conversion optimization, web design/usability, advertising, and more. But, before hiring an expert in one of those areas, ensure that your marketing management and strategy is developed by someone or a team (like The Cline Group) that understands both the channels and what your entire business aims to achieve.

The following is sixth in a series of posts about high tech marketing strategy based on Geoffrey Moore’s Crossing the Chasm.

In order to win the battle for customers and revenue, you must define the battle.

One essential component to building a market is positioning.

Positioning is the image or identity in the minds of their target market for its product, brand, or organization.

Despite common misconception (and Wikipedia’s own entry), positioning is not a process but rather the market position itself.

To succeed “we need to understand who or what the competition is, what their current relationship to our target customer consists of, and how we can best position ourselves to force them out of our target market segment.”

Create the competition

Define the competition in such a way that you are the leader.

It must be a competition big enough that there’s a market, but also targeted enough to win.

Geoffrey Moore might be the greatest marketing consultant with a PhD in Renaissance English but so what? That’s a small, irrelevant niche.

He could claim he’s the greatest marketing consultant of all time but – as much as Crossing the Chasm is great – that’s simply false and even worse not credible.

Our positioning should change depending on the stage of the technology adoption life cycle that we are targeting, according to the Competitive Positioning Compass.

The early market is dominated by specialists interested in technology and product, rather than company or market issues.

The mainstream market is “dominated by generalists who are more interested in market leadership and company stability than the bits and bytes or speeds and feeds of particular products.”

Markets begin in a state of skepticism and evolve to a state of support. In the early market, the technology enthusiasts are the skeptical gatekeepers. In the mainstream, it’s the pragmatists. However, once they give their blessings, they buy in. Hence, you need to create a value proposition for each group that’s compelling.

In order to win the pragmatist than we must focus on market-centered concerns. Shift our marketing focus from product-centric values to market-centric ones. See the chart below:

According to Moore, “it is the market-centric value system – supplemented (but not superceded) by the product-centric one – that must be the basis for the value profile of the target customers when crossing the chasm.

Next comes positioning.

There are four important principles to remember about positioning:

1. Positioning is a noun, not a verb – it’s attribute, not a marketing process.
2. Positioning is the single largest influence on the buying decision – it serves as buyers’ shorthand
3. Positioning exists in people’s heads, not in your words – You must frame a position that actually exists in other people’s heads “and not in words that come straight from hot advertising copy.” Forget creative or buzz or fluff. If it’s inauthentic, it’s not correctly positioned.
4. People are highly conservative about entertaining changes in positioning – the most effective positioning strategies demand the least amount of change.

How do we come up with a position? There are four important steps:

1. Name it and frame it – reference what they seek and under what category it resides. Jargon is gobbledygook and has no place. Listen to Strunk and White, be clear and concise.This is the minimum needed to get a technology enthusiast to buy.
2. Who for and what for – Customers will not buy something until they know who is going to use it and the purpose it serves. This is the minimum needed to get a visionary to buy.
3. Competition and differentiation – Customers can’t know what to expect or what to pay until they can place it in a comparative context. This is the minimum needed to get a pragmatist to buy.
4. Financials and futures – Customers can’t be completely secure in buying unless they know it comes from a vendor with straying power. This is the minimum needed to get a conservative to buy.

So, now what? I still don’t have an elevator statement, or a positioning statement.

What is a positioning statement? What is it made up of?

1. The claim
2. The evidence
3. Communications
4. Feedback and adjustment

A good position must pass the elevator test. It must be credible. Can you explain your product in the amount of time it takes to ride up in an elevator. If not, you will fail. You won’t get funded. Here’s why:

1. Your claim can’t be transmitted by word-of-mouth.
2. Your marketing communications will be all over the map.
3. Your R&D will be all over the map. You will have no winning proposition, but many losing ones.
4. You won’t be able to recruit partners and allies.
5. You won’t get financing from anybody with experience  — if you can’t pass the elevator test, investors know that you lack a clear and investable marketing strategy.

Define your position based on the target segment you intend to dominate and the value proposition that you intend to dominate it with.

Positioning is dynamic. It’s not a one time event, but something that – like agile – should have continuous iterations.

Here’s a proven formula to win. Try it out:

• For (target customers – beachhead segment only)
• Who are dissatisfied with (the current market alternative)
• Our product is a (new product category)
• That provides (key problem solving capability)
• Unlike (the product alternative – competitors and substitute goods)
• We have assembled (key whole product features)

A prospective client recently contacted me after reading an article I wrote, “Debunking Myths of Cleantech PR.”  We had a great conversation and he told me about his cleantech company – more than three years old, some partnerships in place, some impressive news coverage from about 6 months ago.  All in all they seem like a perfect candidate for my agency to take on.

Ah…if only new business were that easy…this prospective client, let’s call him Gary told me he has been managing external communications until now in-house with a degree of success.  While Gary wanted to bring a PR firm on board to work with his cleantech company, he expected resistance from the company’s board.  This is a fairly familiar scenario these days — particularly in the cleantech world, where the money has gotten much tighter and the runways to profitability continue to be fairly long.

Here is what Gary wrote:

“The pushback I expect to receive is that exposure and raising profile is only good if we know what to do with it / convert it. I suppose my question is how would engaging with [The] Cline [Group] help us along the path after the splash? For instance, are you practiced in helping to grow a cleantech start-up? If so, would you be involved in strategy that helps us to connect the dots from a ‘splash’ to execution?”

Now I like Gary. From what I can tell he likes me and we could probably do great things together and bring a lot of attention to his company.  But his company’s board (who pay the bills) has a valid question here.  Let’s say I do get them onto the front page of the business section of The New York Times, as I have before for another client. If his company isn’t in a position to convert all that media attention, all those precious backlinks and credibility into more business – was it worth the added expense?

And further, is there a way that PR can help a cleantech start-up grow beyond messaging, pitching, media training? Can PR expand your visibility with industry analyst and the investment community?  Yes.

Cleantech case in point

In the past I had a client that had a very cool remediation and resource-recovery technology. They not only cleaned wastewater effluent beyond EPA standards but could also recapture valuable materials usually lost during the manufacturing process. The company had a broad range of industries that they offered their solution to – which made our job particularly challenging.  They wanted to target food and beverage manufacturing, airports, solar panel manufacturers, furniture and bicycle manufacturers and others.

This client wasn’t interested in getting in front of millions of people with a bullhorn. On the contrary, when we started working together their President told me he only cared about reaching approximately 2,500 people…on the planet!  They wanted to focus PR efforts so that publicity translated into sales, at the very least – leads.  That makes sense.  I don’t fault any company today, cleantech or otherwise for looking a bit deeper when determining ROI of their marketing budget.  Today, many start-ups understand how to use a marketing firm like The Cline Group not to increase visibility, become thought leaders in their space and attract investors.

Focus on niche targets

To address the concerns of this client, what we did was add a new layer to the program. We would still get them coverage in mainstream press like this New York Times article about one of their programs in Jamaica Bay, NY.  In addition we worked with the president of the company to author several by-lined articles which we pitched and placed only in publications that we knew their customers were reading.  The results, according to our client were terrific and most importantly they yielded true sales leads. In an industry like public relations, ROI isn’t always a simple calculus (is that an oxymoron?).  We know that an article in a major publication like the Times does a lot for a company – it demonstrates credibility, objective and positive feedback and in general makes investors, customers and partners feel good about signing a contract with our clients.  We know this.  But in this economy, sometimes you have to use the power of PR in a more focused way that does translate more directly into new business.

Instead, we decided to look at each market that this client was focusing their sales team on and to turn case studies into coverage that in turn led to more leads for sales.

Just to share a few examples, here are some of the by-lined articles I discussed:

Airport Business Magazine

Food Manufacturing Magazine

Solar Industry Magazine

Water World Magazine

The needs of cleantech companies are different than technology companies. When the goal isn’t to get more than one million downloads but instead to convince someone to buy millions of dollars worth of equipment, the marketing strategy should support that effort.

I have met with over 200 companies, private investors, and angels since January 2011, both in the United States and Israel. Many companies have some market penetration, great ideas, and/or a product that can be sold or used today. But one thing that is almost unanimous is that they all need some type of funding.  Whenever I meet with these types of firms, there are 10 questions that I always ask (which may seem silly). Here they are in no particular order:

1. Do you have a business plan and how old is it? First Round Capital writes: “Your business plan is wrong. It’s a prediction of the future that is out of date as soon as you hit save, print or send. Things change. Competition. Timing. Costs. Pricing. We’d much rather invest in someone who can collect market feedback and adapt to change than someone who is convinced they can predict the future.”
2. Do you have a marketing plan and do you have any visibility amongst your key audiences (i.e media, industry analysts, influencers, etc.)? “Too many companies treat marketing and sales as a tactical afterthought. We believe marketing is strategic and seek companies that are marketing focused – with marketing requirements driving product development.” (First Round Capital)
3. Who are your customers?
4.  Are you trying to change consumer or business behavior?
5.  Do you have intellectual property?
6.  Have you tested your concept or idea in the market place?
7.  How strong is your management team and are you as a founder willing to be replaced?
8.  When will you be profitable?
9.  Do you have a prototype?
10. How much money did you invest, and how is the cash flow situation today?

These are just some questions I ask, and the answers are shocking:

• Maybe we have a flawed business plan?
• We have only some market interest
• We have yet to seek any means of visibility
• We have a ridiculous self-valuation
• We did some research that shows that there is some interest
• And the famous one: no one does what we do the way we do it

The list goes on and on.

The bar today has changed, and companies need to know how to swim in the Atlantic as they swim from Israel to the United States or from the East to West coasts.

As Jeffrey Bussgang writes at Inc.com:

“The entrepreneurs I speak to are feeling it every day. When they pitch their new idea to investors, they are told to build a prototype first. When they build the prototype, they are told to go get customers. When they get customers, they are told to show engagement metrics. When they show engagement metrics, they are told to run some monetization experiments. When they run monetization experiments, they are told to prove scalability. Maybe I have Passover on the brain this week, but it’s like investors are putting entrepreneurs through a nightmarish version of the song Dayeinu. (Speaking of Passover, if you haven’t seen this Jon Stewart clip of Passover vs. Easter, it’s a must. I’ll wait.)”

Today, in the funding landscape, investors are looking for diverse criteria when analyzing a company. They have questions like: How many downloads do you have today? What is your revenue model? How long is your sales cycle? What is your exit strategy? What are the boundaries and challenges for you and your company?

I had the pleasure to be in a small, intimate meeting over a year ago with Josh Kopelman of First Round Capital, who states that “You only need $500,000 today to start a business, and companies can test their business idea and consumer interest by using very little capital by taking advantage of online research strategies.”

Other investors, including some of the best in the United States, have said that one of the biggest mistakes companies make is thinking that media and analyst relations are not that important right now and they can’t allocate funds towards it. One venture capitalist said that all companies today need to show as much traction as they can as they shuffle through files and files of funding requests a week. Who is going to grab my attention?

Bussgang continues to write:

Why is the new investment bar so high today? Isn’t there plenty of euphoria to go around with the IPO market returning, marquee acquisitions (e.g., Instagram for $1 billion) and the impending, earth-shattering Facebook IPO?

Bussgang continues to note these three forces:

1. The Lean Start-Up movement, which has trained entrepreneurs on capital-efficient start-up techniques.

2. The plummeting cost of experimentation and the cloud, which allows entrepreneurs to rent infrastructure that allows them to develop prototypes and pilots much cheaply than ever before.

3. The proliferation of social media, which allows entrepreneurs to read innumerable books and blogs to educate them on building start-ups and effective fundraising.

When you are seeking funding, it is always important to remember your competitive advantage, market potential, barriers to entry, and exit strategy.

As an entrepreneur or emerging business, it is very important to understand the market and the audience your pitching. The last thing you would want to do is waste an investor’s time. It is a small community these days and preparation is as important as the pitch itself.  Without it, your company will be just one among the many who seek funding – and will probably do so unsuccessfully.

Today GigaOm Cleantech published a tribute article I wrote about my mentor, David Anthony.  DA got me started in cleantech PR when very few people even knew what cleantech or clean energy meant. Working with DA was incredibly stimulating, and I will always be grateful for how much time he spent teaching me about everything from concentrated PV technology to remediation.  Four years ago, when we first collaborated, DA wanted to raise his profile through speaking engagements and by-lined articles, which I helped him to write.  That experience and close collaboration was what put the fire in my belly regarding cleantech and what continues to fuel my belief that cleantech is the solution to the world’s greatest challenges. The original article is republished below with permission.

DA you will be missed.

Like many people, I was shocked and saddened to learn of David Anthony’s passing. I had the privilege of working with and learning from David for the past four years, which were some of the best of my professional career.  During that time I took part in David’s brainchild: a marketing firm focused exclusively on cleantech companies that was founded to service the 21Ventures portfolio as well as other cleantech companies.

Working with David Anthony wasn’t always easy, but it was always inspiring. His tone, his cadence, and these pregnant pauses he always took when he spoke were more suggestive of a Zen Buddhist than your typical type-A venture capitalist. His patience was one his defining characteristics.

At his core, David Anthony was a teacher who happened to also excel at investing. David used to love speaking at conferences and lecturing around the world. He taught courses at various universities such as, From Idea to IPO, at the New York Academy of Sciences, which taught scientists how to commercialize their technology. DA, as he liked being called, was a voracious reader who synthesized information about the numerous disciplines endemic to cleantech faster than just about anyone I have encountered. He would then love to transmit that information anyway he could: in articles, newsletters, phone calls. Like I said, a natural teacher.

David possessed a calm assurance and expected those around him to succeed. Oftentimes, that confidence was infectious. At the same time, he was willing to admit his mistakes. One time DA approached me with the idea that 21Ventures should post a section featuring portfolio companies that had failed. As a marketer I was horrified at the idea, and successfully talked him out of this. In hindsight, DA’s willingness to admit that not every company he worked with turned to gold was just the kind of self-effacement that inspires loyalty and confidence.

David practiced meditation, traveled the world constantly and sat on the board of numerous cleantech companies (some startups and some established companies). He did all of this despite the fact that he was legally blind. It was a fact that he would never shy away from. To the contrary, I recall once he told me that he wouldn’t necessarily want it back – even if this were possible. Incredulous, I asked him why not. “Because it helps me do my job better,” he said. “To be a VC and vet all of these ideas and companies you have be a good listener.”

This recent video clip of DA speaking on a panel at a cleantech investing conference in Israel (where DA had invested in four cleantech companies), demonstrates his poise and thoughtfulness. I’m pretty sure that’s the last public speaking engagement he participated in before his untimely death.

Due to DA’s seeing impairment, I used to help him pen some of his articles to industry publications such as these articles for GigaOm. When David would approach me with a topic for an article he wanted to write, it was always with conviction. Some of his more memorable assertions were that despite their good intentions, the Obama administration blew it with their promise of $73 billion dedicated to the cleantech sector.  He used to say, “It’s very difficult for those of us who regularly invest in cleantech to pick winners. Why should the government assume they can?”  David posited that hedging their bets would have been a better strategy. “Instead of giving $500 million to one company, why not give $10 million to 50 companies?”

David also believed that in order for utility scale renewable energy generation to win, it would need better storage solutions, due to its intermittency.

David was a big believer in selling clean technologies to China and India, which he saw as ideal markets for clean technology because of their government’s stated goals and their economic, political and social needs. He firmly held that grid parity for renewable or clean energy made the most sense in these emerging markets where they still need to make considerable capital investments just to keep up with demand, as opposed to the U.S. where a ‘balanced grid’ exists. He always believed that great technology and disruption would come from the west but he was betting that those technologies would be sold to China and India.

During the time that I knew him, DA had his share of ups and downs, successes and failures. Yet as I reflect on his legacy I see a person who loved his work, was a natural teacher and had an infectious passion for changing the world through cleantech. It was only a few weeks ago that David told me that he wanted to spend the rest of his life “solving the world’s greatest problems”.  At the time neither of us knew how short that life was going to be, but I can tell you that his impact, through teachings, investments and thoughtful management will be felt in the industry for many years to come.

David Andrew Goldman was a friend and colleague of David Anthony. Yehuda Solomont also contributed to this article. Yehuda is an independent marketing consultant living in Israel.

In 1982, the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) adopted the following definition of “public relations” that had remained in place until this month: “Public relations helps an organization and its publics adapt mutually to each other.” (For even-earlier definitions, you can see Wikipedia.)

On March 1, PRSA announced a new definition after a lengthy debate and vote by public-relations professionals: “Public relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics.” The organization describes the new definition thusly:

The definition that resulted from this effort is inclusive, in that it captures the core essence of what it is all public relations professionals do. We believe that the winning definition is true to the research, and accurately reflects the way in which the public relations professionals who participated in this process described what it is they do for a living.

We like the new definition because it now includes two phrases that are especially relevant to a modern, high-tech world that is increasingly driven by social media: “strategic communication process” and “mutually beneficial relationships.”

Decades (or even just a few years) ago, public relations was largely a one-way street. Spokespersons would speak with journalists, and the reporters would communicate with the public. There was usually a middleman (or middleperson). To manage the branding and perception of your company held by the public, you had to manage the writers who would be discussing it.

Today, however, there are fewer middlemen (more marketers and fewer journalists), and it is easier than ever to communicate directly with your target audience, customers, or demographics through social media. To manage the branding and perception of your company, you increasingly need to manage the public itself. This new paradigm presents its own unique opportunities and challenges: social media is a form of public relations.

Think about it like this: Every update on your company’s Facebook page and every tweet on your company’s Twitter are messages that are branding and positioning your firm in a given way. How you act on social media – for better or worse – now has the potential to affect how the public will relate to and perceive you.

Here is one benefit. How many times has a reporter stated an inaccurate fact about your company in a page-one story and then the correction was noted in a small box on page 62 the following day? With both fewer gatekeepers and the ability to communicate with the public yourself, you can control the message and ensure that everything is accurate and written however you may want. Imagine the kids’ game of Telephone but without all of the children in the middle – it is far more likely thorough social media to ensure that the exact message you send is the message that is received.

However, there is a drawback. Say that you are a Boston company that operates solely in that city. Just a few years ago, you would merely have a staffer print or cut clips from the Boston Globe, Boston Herald, Boston Business Journal, and perhaps some weekly neighborhood newspapers to see how your public-relations strategies are working.

Today, however, you need to know every time that one of the millions of Bostonians says anything about your company on Facebook, Twitter, countless websites, and many other mediums. To operate effectively in this new paradigm, you will need to be well-versed in mining social media to spread your company’s messaging and respond to online mentions as quickly and efficiently as possible.

And this brings us back to the two new phrases in the modern definition of PR that we like: “strategic communication process” and “mutually beneficial relationships.” Public relations is no longer about wining and dining journalists. It is about developing a “strategic communication process” via social media and elsewhere that will allow you to engage with your target audience directly and control the initial message at the same time. (We say “initial” because you can control what you put on social media, but you cannot control what people say on the networks in response.)

The “mutually beneficial relationships” today need to be between both spokespersons and reporters and your company and target audience on social media directly. The question to answer in your PR strategy: How can you interact with the public on social-networking websites in ways that will both help your audience and promote you?

Public relations, just like any other industry, always changes. At a time with ever-evolving technology, it is crucial to understand how new mediums and tools may potentially be used to position your company and achieve your marketing goals. The definition and practice of PR may have changed, but the overall need for public relations never does — and now, social media has become another channel for public relations.

One of the most important functions of marketing isn’t viral and it isn’t advertising and no, it’s not creative slogans. Rather it’s in the fundamental 4Ps taught in every Marketing 101 class: Product.

In order to win the marketplace, you must wire the marketplace. According to Moore, “For a given target customer and a given application, create a marketplace in which your product is the only reasonable buying proposition. That starts… with targeting markets that have a compelling reason to buy your product. The next step is ensuring that you have a monopoly over fulfilling the reason to buy.”

According to Moore, “Whole product planning is the centerpiece for developing a market domination strategy.” He continues, “Winning the whole product battle means winning the war.”

In the following model, there are only two categories: (1) what’s shipped (the generic product) and (2) what else the customers need in order to achieve their compelling reason to buy. Moore calls this the “marketing promise” made to win the sale. Failure to meet this promise in a B2B marketplace has serious consequence, this isn’t fluff or mumbo jumbo but a promise that must be delivered on.

Unless you have been living under a digital rock, you probably know the increasing importance of social-media marketing to your business both today and in the future. However, it is important to know that social media is not a panacea – it is not a magic bullet that will get you a quick million dollars in sales in return. If it were, then every business would be successful within weeks of creating a Facebook page or Twitter account.

Social media, just like any other strategy or tactic, needs to be executed in the best way – in other words, in the way that is most applicable and beneficial to your specific business. No two businesses – or their websites – are exactly the same.

Here is one example. Back in 2006, Rand Fishkin wrote about how much traffic he received from the social-media network StumbleUpon and offered the graphic at the top of this post. Fishkin’s post six years ago correctly provides an example of how much traffic a social-networking website can deliver, but it is important to keep such numbers in context.

Just because a certain source – whether a social-media network or something else – brings you a lot of traffic does not mean that it is bringing you good traffic. Here are the top ten referring websites for a certain website whose data I am analyzing:

Three of the top-ten referrers (outlined in red), as may be expected, are Facebook, StumbleUpon, and Twitter. Sounds great, right? Well, look more closely at the third, fourth, and last columns (from left to right):

• Facebook: 1.67 average number of pages viewed; 3:13 average time on site; and a bounce rate of 70%
• StumbleUpon: 1.14; 0:12; and 87%
• Twitter: 1.65; 3:15; and 81%

What does this tell you? People coming to this particular site from StumbleUpon view far fewer pages, spend barely any time on the website, and are very likely to leave without clicking anything on the site. I would tell the owner of this website, who wants to prioritize social-media marketing, to focus more on Facebook and Twitter instead.

(Of course, this is data from just one website – your specific results may be vastly different, and your resulting strategy would be different as well.)

The reason is clear: people who are more likely to buy are those who spend more time on the website, view more pages, and take a greater interest in what is being presented. StumbleUpon may have brought 1,700 visits over this time period, but it is unlikely that this website had a lot of sales from many people. The point: Would you rather have 50,000 visitors that buy $1,000 worth of goods in a month or 10,000 visitors who buy $100,000 worth in a month? In most businesses, the best gauge of results is the money – not traffic from a social-media network or any other source in and of itself. Therefore, it makes sense to invest more marketing efforts in the sources that will attract more of the customers who will purchase $100,000 worth of goods.

Late last year, Jeff Bullas (among others) reported that StumbleUpon is delivering more overall online traffic than Facebook. To be honest, I yawned when I read that article. Sure, that social-media network might bring a lot of traffic, but if the average visitor spends only twelve seconds at a website (as in the above example), then what should I care?

Of course, I do not mean to pick on StumbleUpon. I am sure that many businesses and website owners find its traffic to be valuable. (After all, if no one thought the network to be useful, StumbleUpon’s more than 10 years of existence would not have been possible.) The point is that any social-media network – or any other specific source of marketing leads and prospects – is not going to be useful to everyone.

If your business has selected social-media marketing as a strategy, then you need to execute that strategy as efficiently and productively as possible. The website I cited above would probably want to ignore StumbleUpon. You might want to do something different. The key is that not all social-media networks – just like not all types of marketing in general – are created equal for everyone.

What, exactly, will work for your business?

A lot of women, like me, watch the Super Bowl for three main things: The national anthem (sung by Kelly Clarkson this year), the halftime show (Madonna featuring many other pop icons), and of course, the commercials.   Each year, advertisers battle and bid millions of dollars for a 30-second spot to debut their commercials during the football game.

Super Bowl XLVI had a lot of entertaining bits while others fell flat or tried too hard.  The thing that stood out most for me was Chevy’s aggressive digs at Ford. In a commercial portraying the Mayan apocalypse, Chevy drivers survived, leaving the rubble unscathed, while the narrator told us that Ford owners couldn’t survive the destruction.

Continuing with the automobile commercials, Clint Eastwood’s long and boring attempt to persuade viewers to do who knows what with Chrysler cars definitely lacked entertainment value.  Acura teamed up with the always-loveable Jerry Seinfeld, who delivered his comedic act and riffed on several classic “Seinfeld” favorites.

Budweiser presented us with feel-good, classic, vintage commercials that celebrated various great moments throughout American history. Bud’s spots were very product-centered and had nostalgic nods to various decades. Overall, Bud left us happy, feeling good, and wanting to crack open a crisp beer.

On the other hand, Coke brought the bears back. We did not really get what they were doing during the commercials, but the cute polar bears quickly evoked forgiveness!  Coke could have done a much better job showcasing its Cola brand that everyone loves.

Another classic brand that never disappoints was M&M, which introduced its new, female character. The company managed to make a “just my shell” joke (involving a brown M&M) and added an edgy twist by suggesting that the candy was naked.

Overall, with more than 140 million Americans watching the Super Bowl, there was plenty of room for billions of dollars to be made as a result of this sporting event. However, a significant chunk of that number is spent on advertising in an attempt to both entertain and influence consumer buying habits.

As in all elements of marketing and branding, the strategy needs to come before the execution. The creation of an amusing advertisement for the Super Bowl that does not aim to achieve a larger purpose may garner a few media mentions, but it will not add to the bottom line.

After watching yesterday’s commercials, we were left with two questions: What do you think was the strategy behind each commercial, and how well did each company execute that strategy? We welcome your comments below!

If you follow marketing news, you have probably heard of national brands launching large social media campaigns like Kohl’s and Target on Facebook and Radio Shack and Nestle on Twitter. Still, it is very easy to use social media for business even if you just have a local store.

In Boston, where I lived for nine years, one of the most-famous pizzerias is Santarpio’s in the neighborhood of East Boston. If you live in Eastie – as Bostonians call it – and order delivery from somewhere else rather than take-away from Santarpio’s (pictured), your neighbors will think that you are crazy or have bad taste in pizza.

The restaurant has a big-enough brand and following that the owners seem not to be bothering with a social-media strategy. If you go to Santarpio’s website, you will see that they do not have links to their Facebook page and Twitter account. Moreover, there are no posts on the Facebook Wall, and there have been only five tweets and nine followers since August.

Still, social media could surely help them – along with many other local businesses in New England or elsewhere. I recently read a blog post by Hubspot (also in Boston) on local social-media marketing, and the company’s points are sound. I’ll address some of their ideas with my own in the context of how Santarpio’s could use Facebook and Twitter. Whatever your own business happens to be, you can adjust accordingly.

1. Use your Facebook page to get found in Google. As my colleague Daniel Goldstein and I wrote in posts here and here, social-media accounts and posts are increasingly appearing in Google search-results. Santarpio’s could add a search term like “Boston Pizza” to its Facebook page name (“Santarpio’s Boston Pizza”) and customize its Facebook page URL to something like www.facebook.com/santarpiosbostonpizza. The informational tabs could also contain keywords. In addition, regular Wall activity including the occasional use of keywords and links would help. All of these actions help to increase the page’s chance to appear in Google search.

2. Use Twitter search to find local people interested in your product or service. Santarpio’s could create a Twitter list showing all tweets that mention the word “pizza,” “ordering pizza,” “getting takeout,” or something similar. Whenever someone local uses the phrase, Santarpio’s could reply and make a marketing pitch (perhaps something like “$2 off a large pizza just for you, today!”) It would also be important to use one of the search features and available tools to limit the search results to a certain radius around the city.

3. Use mobile and social-media check-ins. This is from Hubspot:

Many local businesses leverage mobile check-ins via networks like Foursquare to encourage foot traffic. But you can also use it to identify potential affiliate opportunities. Where else are your customers checking in? If you know where they spend their time, you also know where you should be making your brand visible with things like guest blogging, paid advertising, referrals, and co-marketing opportunities.

Santarpio’s could also posts signs or ask their servers to encourage people to “check-in” on social-media accounts and mobile phones when they sit at a table. If a certain number of people do so, they could be given a free appetizer or something similar. This way, their friends will see their locations – and might just develop a hankering for a famous slice of cheese and pepperoni themselves.

If Santarpio’s, for example, would engage a lot of people in Boston through social media, then more people would think to go there once they see a lot more people posting on Facebook and Twitter about the famous restaurant. It’s all about brand awareness. Since I moved away from Massachusetts, the pizzeria opened a second location in the northern suburb of Peabody. An effective use of social media would make them even more of a success and possibly lead to even more locations (assuming that Santarpio’s still has popular pizza and satisfied customers!).

And the same is likely true for whatever your local business happens to offer.