Marketers Studio - David Berkowitz's Marketing Blog

How Do Brands View Vendor Pitches?

Digiday has a fantastic post this week featuring Brian Maynard, director of marketing for Jenn-Air at Whirlpool, on what he thinks of vendors pitching him all the time. It seems like every single vendor knows how to find him:

I can tell you that every day, every single day, I receive somewhere between 50-75 touches from someone wanting to sell me something. I get phone calls, emails; they even mail me letters. Of the 50-75, I maybe get to look at 25. They all say the same thing: “Can I get 30 minutes of your time?” If I did 10, I would not have time to do my job.

That sums up the challenge with the proliferation of vendors, especially since, as he notes, most aren't doing their homework. 

My job's a little different from his. I have to look at every single pitch - even if it's a smaller number of pitches than he gets daily. I try to meet with as many as I can. But as someone who is looking out for my 450 colleagues and dozens of clients, I have to be judicious and wind up with little tolerance for vendors who are unprofessionally pushy, lazy, or tone deaf. 

One of my biggest pet peeves lately: when a pitch isn't relevant for me and I tell someone in sales who exactly at my agency they should reach out to, and then they keep responding to me either to try the pitch again or complain that a colleague isn't getting back to them. If a colleague isn't getting back to them, that's because of their pitch, not me, and it only makes me think less of them. Often, I'll put a note in their contact file that they whine and waste my time.

Read the rest of the post at Digiday. Again, it's a great interview.

Buzzfeed, Interesting Word Choice in Your Meme Coverage...

Buzzfeed just posted about the "Ignore Hitler" meme spreading through Draw Something. I'm not really offended by the meme, but there has to be a better subheader for the story than saying "They've lost 6 million..." That's an unfortunate Holocaust reference, used in the context here of an app losing some users. 

 

TripIt's Questionable Billing Practices Tarnish Travel App

I've been a big fan of TripIt for years, logging more than 292,000 miles of trips through the travel service that organizes travel plans into useful itineraries easily accessible via mobile devices. My enthusiasm for them was greatly diminished though recently due to their billing practices and clear lack of understanding why what they're doing is wrong.

Some time ago, I received a free trial of TripIt Pro which activates many of TripIt's bonus features like real-time flight status alerts (which often proved to be inaccurate, and less reliable than far cheaper programs like FlightTrack Pro) and updates on when flight fares drop and you can receive refunds (the one time TripIt kept alerting me to refunds was for the wrong flight, so it didn't apply to me).

A friend and colleague received the free trial at the same time, and alerted me several weeks ago that he was billed for the service once the trial ran out. He received no notice from TripIt, and only discovered it through Mint, which was tracking his finances. I find it problematic when Mint brings up fees like this. Mint had alerted me to some suspect fees from Citibank, and I was able to call the bank and get the fees waived given that the bank never alerted me to them. Citibank's customer service was far better than TripIt's, which I contacted once I discovered TripIt had charged me $49 in February 2011. Note that TripIt never sent me an alert that I would be billed or that I was billed. It was there for me to check on my own when going through my account on TripIt.

For those who use TripIt, you know you get A LOT of alerts from them. They're always telling you about upcoming trips, who's in your area, and why you should upgrade. They have no problem sending lots of messages to users. The only reason that I can fathom that they wouldn't alert people that they have been billed is dishonesty. They have yet to offer any other plausible reason for this.

I tweeted them on January 6 about the error and got no response.

I also posted on Facebook on January 9:

Warning to Tripit Pro users: Tripit will not inform you when your account is up for renewal and thus when you will be charged. When you discover you've been charged and ask for a refund, they will not give it to you. These are completely dishonest billing practices, and I highly advise against signing up for TripIt until things change.

Another user commented that I should contact the credit card company for a refund. I responded:

This is a bigger deal than asking for refunds. My problem is that TripIt does not notify users when you'll be charged or when you were charged. Either TripIt wasn't aware of this and should change it, or it's doing this intentionally. With all the notifications TRipIt sends users, this would be a logical one for them to include.

TripIt responded with a generic message:

We’re always willing to review a policy or procedure based on user feedback and this post has been passed on to management. Please note that billing information, including next billing date and amount, are available to all users at anytime in the Billing Information area of their profile...

I responded in turn:

I'm glad it's been passed on to management. I've received a lot of communication from TripIt but none even suggesting that it would be in customers' best interests to notify them when they will be charged. This is tone deaf customer service, and it's why I canceled my premium account and am exploring alternatives to TripIt's free services.

TripIt still never addressed the issue beyond 'passing the post on to management.'

TripIt clearly doesn't get the benefit of alerting users to charges, nor do they bother explaning why they don't alert people. Further proof comes from TripIt's Catina, who responded to a separate email I sent through their site:

Thanks for contacting us. Reviewing your TripIt Pro account based on your email address XXX, we see that you were billed on 2/11/11 for $49 transaction id is XXX . Your next scheduled renewal is 2/12/12. If you feel you were billed after that date, it could be that you have another account with a different email address that's not associated to XXX. We can only pull account information by an email address. At the time of sign up you entered your credit card information and agreed to the terms of service (which stated that if you did not cancel prior to the conclusion of the trail period that your membership would continue and your card would be charged).

You can view your transaction history and print receipts for each transaction, on our web site (www.tripit.com), in the 'Your purchase history' section of the billing history page of your TripIt account. To access this area (after signing in) go to User Name > Settings > Billing info (you can find a direct link in our help page item: http://help.tripit.com/entries/393497)

To avoid the auto renewal, you can cancel your TripIt Pro subscription and keep your Pro benefits for the full term paid please see the instructions in our help page on this topic: http://help.tripit.com/entries/89464. If you wish to close your account, sign in to TripIt and click on your user name and then Settings > Close Account (http://www.tripit.com/account/delete). Be sure to select the 'do not contact' option if you don't want to receive any TripIt initiated emails in the future. Please note, if you are a paid TripIt Pro member and cancel your TripIt account no refunds will be provided.

So in other words, it's the "terms of service defense." But that still doesn't answer why they were charging users without alerting them. I explained this to them, and Catina said, "You stated, 'I was billed twice.'" I never said that, so the next exchange was all about clarifying something that Catina invented.

It was then that I posted on Facebook and got another form response from TripIt:

We saw your Facebook posting and wanted to inform you, your transaction history can be viewed on our web site (www.tripit.com), in the 'Your purchase history' section of the billing history page of your TripIt account. To access this area (after signing in) go to User Name > Settings > Billing info (you can find a direct link in our help page item: http://help.tripit.com/entries/393497)

I responded to Catina:

That still doesn't help as you never notified me a payment was due or then
processed. I will continue to post this on Facebook, Twitter and elsewhere
until you change your policy. A refund is still requested as well. If you
were being charged for a service, wouldn't you want to know about it? I'd
actually be fine forgoing my refund if you change your policy.

Catina never responded, nor did anyone else from TripIt through this line.

I did take one more measure. I know someone who works with TripIt, so I reached out to her partially to let her know that I was going to raise the issue further, and partially to see if I'd get any better a response. She responded:

I checked with our team, and the intention behind auto-renewal is to prevent travelers from having a service lapse in the middle of traveling. The last thing we'd want to happen is for a traveler not be alerted that their plane is early/late (for example), when they're expecting to hear from us. However, we do provide a 2-week grace period following the charge, so cancellations can be made during that time.

Please know that your voice has been heard, and we're taking into consideration the suggestions you've made.

Again, my voice has been heard. Management received my request. Great. I responded to her:

My problem isn’t the auto-renewal at all. I understand that makes sense for some services.

Can you explain why they wouldn’t notify users that their auto-renewal is coming up, and that their auto-renewal was just processed? How does one even know when the grace period is if they’re never notified?

I heard nothing more from her or anyone at TripIt.

For a service built on notifications, and one that I thought was designed with the consumer in mind, I have been seeking alternatives. FlightTrack Pro, as mentioned, works well for notifications with a one-time $10 charge. Kayak's My Trips further organizes trips in a similar way that TripIt does and is proving to work well.

I'd like to keep using TripIt but can't if this is how they treat their users. Fortunately the alternatives keep getting better.

The Chosen Media

The Chosen Media
originally published in MediaPost's Social Media Insider
(update: for the benefit of the Walgreens representative who commented below, and the benefit of anyone else who may be confused, this entire column is an opinion, as is everything else on this blog)

“Now therefore, if You will obey our voices, and keep our covenant, then social media shall be a special treasure to us above all media. For You are holy media to us, and we have chosen You to be our treasured media from all other media on the face of the Earth.” – The Gospel of Zuckerberkowitz 3:16, shamelessly bastardized from Biblical passages cited in Wikipedia

Social media has clearly become the Chosen Media. If you have any doubt, consider the outcries over the past week directed at Google, Facebook, and Walgreens:

1)     Google sparked the biggest backlash. As noted by fellow columnist Cathy Taylor, Google betrayed users’ trust by pumping Google+ results into natural search listings while shutting out Facebook and Twitter. The outcry will reverberate as more people initiate searches that trigger questionable social results. My friend Dan Lewis tweeted, “Google's social-ly image search stunks. [sic] I like @dberkowitz, but I don't want his vacation pics when doing a search on ‘Tiananmen Square.’”

The headlines coming out of it were sometimes scathing. The Washington Post ran a guide to its privacy and antitrust implications. Gizmodo declared, “Google just made Bing the best search engine.” Relevance is personal, so Google had some defenders, but if this is what social search looks like, the early verdict indicates people would rather keep the two separate.

2)     Facebook can thank Google for taking attention away from its own controversy. The social network is now mining public and private Facebook posts for data that Politico can use in its reporting. Anytime you reference Mitt Romney driving to Canada with the family dog strapped to the roof of his car (that means you, Gail Collins), Facebook will tabulate your feelings about it and send it over to Politico’s editorial desk.

The problem lies with Facebook mining private posts without educating users about what it’s doing or providing a way to opt out. There are probably millions of people paranoid about the government monitoring their lives who don’t realize that Mark Zuckerberg’s operation is at least as sophisticated. ReadWriteWeb noted that this is a great potential service from Facebook, but Facebook can’t violate users’ trust.

3)     If you can’t trust Google and Facebook, you can at least trust your local pharmacy, right? Not so fast. Walgreens has been involved in a lengthy and public dispute with pharmacy benefits provider Express Scripts. While Express Scripts is reaching out to consumers to help them switch pharmacies, Walgreens is wagering that the court of public opinion will be decided through social channels. It kicked off a widespread campaign by sponsoring tweets and paying off bloggers, with the goal of pressuring Express Scripts to relent to Walgreens’ terms.

The problem for Walgreens is that it’s bringing a lot of extra negative attention to the issue. Promoting a tweet with the hashtag “ilovewalgreens” hardly feels authentic, and the bloggers being paid don’t necessarily have any connection to or affinity for the retailer.

In each of these examples, the offending party is being accused of violating the Covenant that was formed between the People and the Chosen Media. It’s a Covenant that says transparency, privacy, and authenticity are sacred. It’s a Covenant that says the People own the Chosen Media, no matter which corporations participate. It’s a Covenant that says that the People’s loyalties are to the Chosen Media, and to each other; everything else is fluid.

Few other things are sacred anymore. The prophets of Lucy and Berle and Cosby no longer carry the same resonance. Newer idols, like “American Idol,” work precisely because they resonate through the Chosen Media. In lieu of temple chambers, we have echo chambers.

What’s sacred today may not be tomorrow. Yet right now, media companies, marketers, and everyone else must respect the Covenant between the People and the Chosen Media -- or face the uproar by those aggrieved.

Netflix In Netflux Flunks Recommendations

Qwikster can come soon enough

Netflix In Netflux Flunks Recommendations
originally published in MediaPost's Social Media Insider

I wouldn't have predicted that I'd be seeking a new entertainment recommendation service right at the time that I've been using Netflix the most. Sadly, with its forthcoming split into two companies, Netflix has lost any concept of what it is, and it has just opened a massive window for someone to trump it.

Since returning from Asia on Sept. 11, I've been using Netflix more than I ever have. It's been a perfect storm of sorts. Jet lag kept me awake at odd hours, a stomach bug kept me home more than usual (thanks, Mongolian mutton), and rerun-heavy weeks before the fall TV premieres ensured there were few new shows worth watching. Naturally, I turned to Netflix to fill the void.

It proved to yield mixed results. I did watch a number of films on Netflix, mostly documentaries. I only did so after sifting through hundreds of recommendations for movies I'd never want to watch, while looking for several movies that weren't available via streaming. Alternatively, I'd sift through the more limited options from Time Warner on-demand, including selections such as the wonderful "Mao's Last Dancer" that aren't yet available from Netflix. And rewatching this season of "Curb Your Enthusiasm" on HBO on-demand got me through a very long night.

All of this leads to what makes Netflix different from its competitors. Netflix isn't a movie delivery company. It's an entertainment recommendation engine that provides fast access to its recommendations. Netflix once valued recommendations so much that it offered a $1 million prize in October 2006 to anyone who could substantially improve its recommendations, a reward claimed in September 2009. The history of Netflix from 1997 to 2009 hinged on recommendations. And these recommendations benefited from the network effect: as more people participated in rating films, the ratings continually improved for all Netflix subscribers.

Since then, Netflix has shifted its focus to streaming. There are several challenges with that. The first is that the best streaming companies we have in the U.S. are the cable companies, as their pipes are best equipped to transmit the content. I'm no fan of Time Warner, but most of the time, it works instantly, and the high definition quality is a great bonus. Even in this economy, with cord cutting an important trend to follow, it will take a long time for most people to wean themselves off  cable.

Then there's selection. Netflix has a great selection for DVDs, but the selection for streaming will always be hindered by obvious examples of what's missing. If you're looking for movies that Netflix doesn't have for streaming, and it happens over and over again, it triggers a conditioned response. You get used to the idea that it only has what it offers you, not what you're looking for. People are used to that from cable operators, but not from Netflix, which once was known for having just about everything.

What Netflix is left with is a dumb pipe. It's a delivery mechanism for a lot of streaming content, and most people can probably rationalize getting their money's worth if they watch a couple movies or a chunk of a TV series each month that way. That's fine, and I'm not canceling my Netflix subscription yet.

But now you have a slew of opportunities. Others can trump Netflix in providing even faster access to content (possible winner: cable operators), better guides to figuring out what's available across content providers (potentially a next-generation Google TV, or the Xbox), better recommendation engines (startups like matcha.tv, or teams that competed for the Netflix Prize), or amassing the widest range of content (Facebook may play a role here).

The old Netflix encouraged others to beat it at its own game. During the 35 months of the Netflix Prize, and in the aftermath, it was clear that no one could beat Netflix at recommendations. Its analysis of user-generated content was such a competitive advantage that anyone else who moved into Netflix's space wound up falling behind from the start.

Now, Netflix says recommendations don't matter so much, as the streaming recommendations won't be as good when decoupled from its DVD library. Recommendations will matter more for Netflix's DVD service, Qwikster. Yet Netflix cares so little about its new brand that it didn't even secure the seldom-used Twitter handle from Jason Castillo, who posts gems such as "About as tired as shyt n I can't sleep" and apparently may not have recovered from hitting his head with a wrench.

If Netflix continues to go in this direction and hangs its hat on the dumb pipe delivery mechanism, it's a commodity. Ratings aren't commodities, though; they're personal. They'll turn a dumb pipe into a Ph.D. scholar. Who will be smart enough to capitalize on this opportunity?

Don't Be a Weiner

originally published in MediaPost's Social Media Insider

Congressman Anthony Weiner, representing New York's 9^th district, has many accomplishments under his belt, from putting at-risk teens to work removing graffiti in a program he called "Weiner's Cleaners" to getting elected "Whip" of his Congressional class. Marketers will be wise to pay attention to something else that happened under his belt, as the representative publicly posted a photo of that region to his Twitter account when he meant to send it as a private direct message instead. (Here's a timeline that mercifully doesn't include the photo that started it all.)

You should have bigger concerns right now beyond how many New York congressmen will expose themselves through social media, following Chris Lee's Craigslist scandal earlier this year (Representative Charles Rangel, please have mercy on the interwebs and keep your shirt on). Marketers, "Wienergate" can happen to you, but the power to prevent it is in your hands. Here are some helpful dos and don'ts:        

Do take inventory of who can post to your social media accounts.

Don't use your Twitter handle as your password. Using the Twitter handle of a college student you're flirting with is not a step up.

Do find a way to manage your accounts that feels natural so you stick with it, whether that's on your desktop, mobile device, in a browser, or even via email.

Don't use the same program to manage both personal and brand accounts, given how easy it is to post content to the wrong account. This wouldn't have helped Rep. Weiner, but people so self-destructive are beyond help in such scenarios.

Do follow other Twitter users if you feel so inclined.

Don't follow only people listed on the Hot or Not Top 100 list, unless your brand only targets physically attractive people. As Rep. Weiner learned, others can analyze whom you follow to come to conclusions about your interests, preferences, and whom you're sending naughty pictures to.

Do monitor your social channels regularly.

Don't instantly assume you've been hacked if you see some unexpected content posted on your account. And now that Rep. Weiner acknowledged this was just a cover, no one will believe you anyway.

Do post multimedia to your account. It's normally a great way to engage your audience.

Don't post images of any body part unless it's directly relevant to your brand. Rep. Weiner, for instance, might have been justified in posting underwear shots if he was trying to post solidarity with American cotton growers. More to the point, oral hygiene brands could find rationale in posting photos of people's mouths.

Do remove offensive content if something unexpected and unapproved appears there.

Don't come up with 10 different stories on how such unauthorized content appeared, and then share versions of all 10 stories simultaneously.

Do fess up to any mistakes using the same social channel(s) where you made them, beyond any other way you get the word out. It's the first place people will look for follow-up information.

Don't call a press conference weeks after the mess started only after others discovered how much worse the scandal is.

Do have a sense of humor when human error happens, as most people know it can happen to anyone, including themselves. Even the American Red Cross was caught posting about "gettingslizzerd" with Dogfish Head beer on Twitter. Thanks to quick thinking, it wound up leading to great exposure for both the Red Cross and the beer company.

Don't be a Weiner.

As Slate Shows with Siemens, Contextual Ad Targeting Still Needs to be Trained

I was reading through an article on Slate analyzing Mitt Romney's comments about a proposed U.S.-Russia nuclear arms treaty and did a double-take. It started to talk about rail-based missiles, and then went on for a bit. Right next to the article was an ad from Siemens touting the benefits of high-speed railroads. I wonder if Siemens can launch missiles off their railways? That might open up some new revenue streams from them and make these ads REALLY profitable.

See the snapshot of the placement:

The ad led to this page on rail development.

In case it's easier to read, here's the full text of the paragraph on rail missiles:

First, neither Russia nor the United States has any rail-based ICBMs or launchers. Second, the treaty does deal with mobile ICBMs, in two ways. Article IV, Section 1 states that ICBMs can be deployed "only at ICBM bases." If, in some perverse wordplay, the Russians claim that a railroad line is a "base," Article III, Section 5b notes that an ICBM is counted under the treaty's limits the moment it leaves the production facility (which other sections of the treaty place under constant monitoring); it doesn't matter where the missile goes afterward, it's still counted as an ICBM. So while mobile missiles might not be "mentioned" by the treaty, they are, in effect, restricted.

Don't Ever Send Press Releases to "Friends" on Facebook

PR practitioners, here's a very simple lesson: do not send press releases or mass mailed pitches to journalists you happen to be friends with on social networks. It's very poor form, an intrusion, and lazy.

I had to blog this one, especially after Jeremy Epstein's great post last week, "Dont Confuse Access with Permission." He noted his own reason for "defriendification" on Facebook, and I've got one to contribute too.

A CEO of a company befriended me on Facebook, and while I can't say I really knew him, I have him the benefit of the doubt. His company does seem genuinely interesting, and perhaps he'd be a good connection. Usually this kind of thinking results in some head-scratching moment as to why I befriended them in the first place (always due to the other's invite). This case proved no different.

On a Saturday afternoon, I received this message from him - note all details are blocked out, but you can get the gist:

Hi David,

Company Name has launched a new product with a host of unique features. We offer X,000 whatever, blah blah description of what it does with lots of buzzwords like "truly platform-independent". This went on for a few lines.

We've focused on he keeps going... now it's another five lines.

When you buy a product from us, you almost always get the following: about ten lines of blather now... really, does it ever end?........ The scarce value we provide is our service, which lets our customers do whatever he says they do when, where and how they want.

If you'd like to try Product Name, you can use the coupon code "CANTBELIEVEYOURESTILLREADINGTHISFAR" (without quotes) to get a free whatever, and it goes on a few more lines. After you register, you'll be prompted to redeem your coupon. If you see something else that you'd like, let me know and I'll send a different coupon. We do this other stuff too that I somehow neglected to tell you about in the previous 30 lines of text that you didn't read.

I hope that you'll mention Product Name somewhere [not mentioning any publication I write for - not even a simple 'find and replace' courtesy]. Please feel free to contact me any time. Thanks in advance for your consideration.

Best Regards,
Name, CEO
Comany Name
Contact Info

Then there's the embedded link and description to his site that Facebook brings up.

I double-checked my contacts in Outlook to make sure I didn't really know him. Then I defriended him. I couldn't help write him back: "Sorry Name, I'm really not looking to get press releases here. David"

He then wrote me: "You're entitled to call it what you want. I call it a letter. Sorry for the intrusion."

I responded: "Okay, a barely personalized pitch, not a press release - hardly a letter I'd expect to get from a friend here."

What's your take? Am I too harsh? Not harsh enough? Is this a lost cause?

Update: He wrote me back after I wrote this post with a very kind, personal, apolgetic message, even if he thought I was overreacting (a perspective I'm still willing to entertain). I won't repost his whole message here, but I responded to him with this:

Thanks for the note, [Name]. If you sent me a personal note to begin with, we wouldn't have had this miscommunication. Instead, I got a random form letter out of the blue and [Name of major publication that just gave him a glowing mention] can give it all the great press in the world, but I still won't think it matters.

If Facebook does become just another way for me to get impersonal pitches from people who I can't recall how we're connected, I may well wind up somewhere else. I think my response is something anyone can expect more and more when sending unsolicited commercial email here, which of course is spam. For unprompted pitches like that, how will someone even know if it's relevant?

Harsh as it may be, I'd do it again in heartbeat, though most of the time I won't bother writing back. I was surprised here, and again, I hope this won't be commonplace.

Not mentioning you or your company by name, I will be including this as an example in an upcoming blog post. Check out Jeremy Epstein's blog - http://jer979.com/igniting-the-revolution/access/ . He summed up my thoughts pretty well here, as did Chris Brogan before him.

David

Yes, after his personal message, it did take the edge off. I even toned down a bit of the snark (just a bit) in my annotated version of his original pitch. 

Yet I'm glad I started this post before he sent it. I hope it's a worthwhile lesson others will appreciate. And I hope this doesn't become what Facebook's all about. LinkedIn, to its credit, has managed to stay largely relevant to me - with hundreds and hundreds of contacts (all people I really know) and frequent messages to me out of the blue, I can count on, tops, two hands all the people I've de-linked or blocked.

As for my hint of a threat about leaving Facebook, I don't know how bad it would have to get for me to extricate myself from the network, but if this does get more common, I am at the very least overhauling my privacy standards and my personal definition for what a friend is.

The Ten Plagues of Social Media

Originally published in MediaPost's Social Media Insider

  

In honor of the season, where some celebrate the ancient story of slaves' exodus from Egypt, it's time for a new telling of the ten plagues: the Ten Plagues of Social Media. All are paired with a counterpart from the ancient rendition.

Note that some debates remain as to the ancient plagues' literal meanings. When in doubt, I deferred to biblical scholar Robert Alter's translation of "The Five Books of Moses."

1) Blood: Lack of transparency

Whenever marketers aren't fully transparent as to who they are and what they're promoting when reaching out to consumers and online influencers, they cloud consumers' trust just like blood clouded the Nile. The demands of transparency also fall on the content producers whenever their contributions can be considered influenced by other parties.

2) Frogs: Oversharing

Imagine trying to get a good night's sleep with millions of frogs croaking up a storm. Now try staying on top of what's happening with your social graph when so many of their updates are dedicated to what errands they're running or how much they had to drink last night. Oversharing can wind up hurting relationships, and rightfully makes some question how much value social media adds to their lives.

3) Lice: Campaign-based thinking

It's hard to get lice out of your head, and there's no easy cure for shaking off campaign-based thinking, either. Campaign-to-campaign and quarter-to-quarter thinking prevents marketers from reaping the long-term benefits of social marketing.

4) Flies: Autoposting

Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Foursquare, and other sites are not all the same, but the way some marketers unleash hoards of content, you might think the sites were interchangeable. Posting the same content in the same way across every social site is efficient for the producer, but diminishes the experience for the recipients. Marketers need to think twice about nearly any kind of automated messaging. There's a place for it; headline and deal feeds are some that can work as syndicated feeds while managing consumer expectations. The first instinct should be to avoid this, though.

5) Pestilence / livestock disease: Lack of internal communication

I don't want to refer to your colleagues (or mine) as livestock, but you depend on your colleagues for your livelihood and putting food on the table, just as our ancient forbears relied on livestock. When marketers and their agency partners aren't in close communication, and when there isn't communication internally with any of those parties, it amounts to a plague on their livelihood.

6) Boils: Lack of Integration

In this case, the plague fits the crime. Social marketing campaigns should be planned just as tightly in conjunction with other marketing programs as boils are connected to victims' skin. Perhaps it's not the most pleasant analogy, but these are the ten plagues, not the ten happiest things to ever happen.

7) Hail: Talking at consumers

Sometimes, reading marketers' updates in social channels feels like walking through a hailstorm. You get pelted by a self-aggrandizing update here and a limited-time offer there, and you can't wait to run for cover. Conversing and asking questions can soften the blows and make it more like a day at the beach.

8) Locusts: Bright shiny object syndrome

If you've ever seen a swarm of locusts on National Geographic Channel or Discovery, you'll appreciate why this was the first plague association to come to mind. Look at all the locusts move from field to field -- blogs to MySpace to Second Life to widgets to Twitter to Facebook to augmented reality to Foursquare -- sucking the life out of them and then looking for their next meal. Marketers can shed their locust exoskeletons by figuring out what works and sticking with it, even while exploring new opportunities.

9) Darkness: Lack of vision

When you see marketers fumble royally in social media, you're usually witnessing a marketer that didn't plan ahead. These fumbles can often arise when a marketer is dealing with a crisis, but they can also come up when marketers are more successful than they anticipated, such as when too many consumers take them up on a deal. Plan for the best and the worst, and be prepared to act when either arises to prevent darkness from descending on your social programs.

10) Death of the firstborn: Death of marketing as we know it

The death of the firstborn plague is the most permanent. There has been a similar plague on marketing and media: rising consumer expectations of some form of two-way communication. For consumers like myself who grew up writing letters to brands that pleasantly or unpleasantly surprised me, this is deliciously empowering. This plague will kill off some marketers who can't adapt.

Egypt wasn't undone by the exodus, or any version of it that has been passed down to us. It remained a capital of the ancient world for over a thousand years more and has been a pivotal part of many great civilizations and cultures since. Plagues may afflict us and they may kill off the weak, but the springtime exodus saga tells the greater story of rebirth and renaissance. If there's not a promised land for marketers per se, may we at least heal from these plagues to uphold brands' promises to consumers.

We Have Sinned

Here's today's Social Media Insider, originally published in MediaPost

It's time to atone.

Some may appreciate the timing, as it coincides with yesterday's observance of Yom Kippur, Judaism's Day of Atonement, the climax of a period of repentance. Everyone has some sins to atone for, including marketers and agencies trying to engage consumers through social media. Today, we'll confess.

On the Day of Atonement, one of the most memorable prayers is a short confessional where a series of sins are listed alphabetically in Hebrew. It's unlikely anyone reciting the confessional has committed all such sins over the past year, but one recognizes that these sins have been committed. Some sins listed are so broad, such as scorning and sinning willfully, that most likely everyone will have committed them.

Below is our confessional, for marketers and agencies. Similar to the spirit of the liturgy, we haven't all committed all of these sins, but most of these transgressions should be familiar.

We Have Sinned

We have awkwardly applied metrics like click-through rates to social marketing programs when we could have found more appropriate ways to quantify results that aligned with our business objectives.

We have bribed consumers to be our friends without devising ways to connect with our real fans and sustain communication with them.

We have ceded control of our social programs to interns, or lawyers, or those who are not in the best position to be the faces and voices of our brands.

We have deceived ourselves, falling in love with our ideas without considering what would provide value for our target audience.

We have eavesdropped on consumers, instead of actually hearing them and listening to them.

We have failed to monitor social channels for discussions of our brands and competitors.

We have guessed at our target audience's interests and activities rather than conducting research that could have provided real answers.

We have hurried into the newest, most-buzzed-about social spaces without developing a strategy.

We have imitated when we could have innovated.

We have judged competitors harshly for making the same mistakes we made.

We have killed ideas that were spot on in favor of pet projects that we wanted for our portfolios.

We have lost consumers by organizing social architectures that were impossible to navigate coherently.

We have mismanaged social marketing by shoehorning it into someone's job description.

We have neglected to integrate social marketing with broader marketing programs.

We have overreached, hoping for content to go viral without investing in resources to properly create, distribute, and promote it.

We have partitioned our organizations so rigidly that we can't plan earned and paid media together.

We have quarreled over who should own social media in our organization.

We have repurposed creative and messaging from other channels when we should have adapted or created it for these social spaces.

We have shortchanged social marketing by planning campaigns instead of ongoing programs.

We have tuned out consumers' criticism when we could have engaged with them to better understand it, or we could have learned from it to ensure other consumers wouldn't have such problems in the future.

We have undervalued and underfunded social programs to such an extent that we have set them up for failure.

We have violated consumers' trust by not being fully transparent as to our identities and objectives.

We have wronged consumers by not respecting their privacy.

We have xenophobically avoided any forms of social media beyond the ones we use ourselves.

We have yelled when we could have conversed.

We have zigzagged between the path we knew was best and the path that was most convenient, even when we could have prevented our transgressions.

Acknowledging these sins is not the same as absolving ourselves of them, but it is the first step on the path to repentance. What we can hope and strive for us that next year, should our community as a whole revisit this confessional, the transgressions will seem more alien -- a memory of how we were and a sign of how far we've come.

What other sins must we atone for? Add your contributions to the confessional in the comments.