Thinking about blogging? Below are the major topics I discuss with CEOs who are considering setting up a blog.

To blog or not to blog
Do you have the time to commit to blogging? A successful blog, whether CEO- or company-driven, takes a time commitment, not only to allocate to the writing of compelling and interesting topics but to also map out an ongoing strategy of what you want the blog to accomplish.

Consider whether or not you are going to actually enjoy blogging. If you end up considering the blog a chore or burden, you will ultimately abandon the blog.

Before beginning to blog, check out what other CEOs are writing about. There are a ton of lists of CEO blogs that can be accessed by doing a quick Google search, along with reviews of who’s doing it right or wrong — and why.

Done right, CEO blogs help establish a voice for the company, create dialogues with internal and external stakeholders, build awareness and educate about your industry and its trends and challenges and establish you as an intelligent and strategic thought leader.

Blogging frequency
Newspapers are typically published anywhere from daily to weekly. TV news is typically broadcast a minimum of three times daily. To attract readers and grow and retain repeat visitors, determine how fast you want to grow a meaningful readership base.

For maximum growth, many experts say you need to post multiple times daily. The reality is that as a CEO, if you or a ghostwriter is blogging more than one to three days per week, it is a stretch of your time and content commitment.

To ensure your blog doesn’t become an afterthought, map out your blogging topics and posting dates four to eight weeks in advance.

Blogging candor
Social media — whether in the form of a blog, discussion groups or pages on popular social platforms such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Pinterest and others — is based on the premise of transparency and authenticity. Be timely and candid with your posts.

People might not always agree with what you have to say, so be ready to accept differing opinions. Remember that anything you post is out there for life. Even if later you decide to take the blog down, chances are that posts may have been archived and reposted somewhere else.

What to blog
Your blog shouldn’t be about what you sell. If you do the blog right, it will end up translating to new business. Write about what you know and the platforms and podiums for which you want to be known. Do you have compelling or thought-provoking insights on leadership, lessons learned, industry trends or other topics attractive to your target readership? Get to the point in your blog posts and save fluff and selling for your advertising and annual reports.

Blog posts don’t have to be novels or dissertations. As long as you are publishing content of interest to your readers, they can be short and sweet.

Consider posting some video entries and posting photos to go along with your written word to add variety.

Private or public blog
Are you planning an internal employee-focused blog, or are you planning a blog to be viewed by the world at large, which includes existing and prospective customers, your competitors and the media?

If your focus is to motivate and educate your employees, a private company blog would be most appropriate. Remember that anything you blog whether on a private, public or invitation-only blog has the potential to be republished and shared with others.

Adrienne Lenhoff is president and CEO of Buzzphoria Social Media Marketing and Online Reputation Management, Shazaaam PR and Marketing Communications, and Promo Marketing Team, which conducts product sampling, mobile tours and events. She can be reached at alenhoff@shazaaam.com

Let’s face it: We all want to be liked. But when it comes to being liked in the social media space — specifically Facebook — many companies make the mistake of measuring the quantity of the “likes” they receive as opposed to the quality.

The reality is that the quality of the likes is often much more important and relevant than the quantity of likes. That fact was driven home to me by the case of one of our clients.

Recently, the client told us that it want to gather more than 1 million likes on its Facebook page. The client’s page receives a steady viral increase of 500 to 700 weekly new likes, and the likes are “quality” likes with relevance to its company. They are coming from individuals who have a special interest in the company, who want to participate in conversations and are actively sharing our client’s posts on their personal Facebook pages and within their social contact spheres.

Looking at the analytics of the individuals who like our client’s page, we’re finding that in addition to being highly activated and engaged, they are also target-market and geographically relevant. The likes are happening because customers are actively sharing the content, pushing new people to discover the page, engaging in relevant discussions and are coming from people specifically seeking the company online in order to socially connect.

Thus far there have been no ad buys and there have been no contests launched to also supplement growth efforts. Their collection of likes — now in excess of 50,000 — has come through social networking efforts.

But internally, our client is facing the same struggle that thousands of companies currently face when it comes to evaluating their social media ROI. Managers within their organization feel that in order to justify the relevance of social media in their marketing mix, they have to obtain as many likes as possible. But getting people to simply click the “like” icon on a Facebook page is not difficult.

There are many ways to quickly inflate page likes. Contests spike likes but most of the entrants are only interested in winning the prize and not in making a purchase. You can buy packages of page likes but the majority of “purchased” likes are typically not buyers and are not geographically relevant.

Facebook ad campaigns, which are similar to Google pay-per-click advertising, can also help drive new likes. Facebook ads allow an advertiser to drill down to target potential brand loyalists and customers by a variety of geographic and psychographic denominators.

The issue is that once you stop the contest or the advertising campaign, your number of new likes will drop off considerably. You potentially will see an exponential increase in likes during the campaign period.

But what good are these new likes if people liking you possibly only visit your page once? If they initially like you and then never come back, they aren’t paying attention to what you’re saying, they’re not engaging with you and they have no interest in buying your product or service — or telling others to buy your product or service.

The relevancy in social media is to have people talking about you and with you, and ultimately becoming your brand evangelists. Statistics have shown that 90 percent of consumers trust peer recommendations and 70 percent of consumers trust recommendations online.

Companies need to turn their attention away from trying to use likes as a popularity contest. As a company leader, you need to realize that if you have a Facebook community of 1,000 consumers who are actively engaged, with analytics showing huge impression rates, it is much more valuable than a community of 10,000 who visit your page, click “like” one time, then seldom — or never — come back.

Adrienne Lenhoff is president and CEO of Buzzphoria Social Media, Shazaaam PR and Marketing Communications, and Promo Marketing Team, which conducts product sampling, mobile tours and events. She can be reached at alenhoff@shazaaam.com.

Companies and other businesses who have shown interest in pursuing social media marketing must be made aware of certain developments at the federal level before going through on that front.

Jon Leibowitz, chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, says the efforts of online marketers have “fallen short” to create a do-not-track mechanism, through a 120-plus page report. The efforts, the report describes, have been overly-complicated for consumers to opt-out of being tracked for marketing information, as well as other self-regulatory efforts.

On the night before he is scheduled to testify before a congressional hearing, Leibowitz and the FTC have called for markets to voluntarily create a user-friendly mechanism that would allow consumers to easily opt-out of data collection.

The reports detailed the marketers efforts to self-regulate and described them as being slow and failing to “provide adequate and meaningful protection.”

It has been over two years since FTC first called for online marketers to provide a clear and concise way for consumers to opt out of data collection, and as it would appear, those calls have fallen by the wayside. Now, the congressional hearings are being called in.

Before being called in from of a congressional committee. Leibowitz expressed his dissatisfaction with the marketers self-regulatory initiative and said, however, that he and the FTC are not calling for privacy regulations, but are not opposed to supporting legislation in the future should it come to that.

In a roundabout way, an ultimatum has been set by the FTC, that it’s been too long and things need to change.

If you are a business or company moving towards online marketing, the FTC is looking for two things – an opt-out mechanism, and that that mechanism is user-friendly.

Some companies have responded and have gotten out ahead of any prospective legislation, most notably Mircosoft, which has included an opt-out function for its latest version of Internet Explorer.

Buzzphoria passionately believes that companies must carefully monitor where and when their messages appear online. We adhere strictly to the Word of Mouth Marketing Association’s (WOMMA) Code of Ethics along with those set fourth by the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), as well as our own sense of keeping our clients’ best interests in mind.

Businesses that wish to take advantage of the social media space in their marketing strategies should be aware of recent developments in the courts with regards to the privacy and confidentiality in online sites. In these cases, unsuspecting site users have had their private conversations violated by site owners, who furthered their own interests by passing along valuable user information, navigation habits etc. to outside marketers.

In March of this year, judgment was handed down in the Facebook privacy lawsuit – the “Beacon Settlement,” in which user information was leaked to advertisers via banner ads – which resulted in Facebook being levied a $9.5 million fine. Furthermore, the court stipulated that Facebook set aside $6 million for the purpose of setting up a foundation, to be headed by a three-person board, tasked with ensuring the privacy of information for Facebook users.

It would appear that the online privacy issues have been resolved with social media users free to Twitter and post at will without fear of private conversations being violated.

However, the judgment which was levied down brings with it its own liabilities. The Facebook privacy foundation will be helmed by Tim Sparapani, the current Facebook director of public policy, which has led critics to call this a conflict of interests. In fact Ginger McCall, a lawyer for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, filed an appeal in the U.S. 9^th Circuit Court, calling the settlement “deficient and illusory.”

In addition, lawsuits have been filed against social media networking sites MySpace and Google Buzz for similar lapses in user privacy. MySpace applications – including TagMe, GreenSpot and RockYou Pets – have allegedly been passing user information to its advertisers.

Buzz – Google’s social networking service – has been charged with passing along personal information that might be held in a user’s Gmail account, making it public, and releasing what was confidential information if users did not specifically change the default settings. Google was recently forced to pay $8.5 million in damages.

Critics like McCall have lampooned the courts decisions, saying the penalty award amounts are misleading with only a small percentage of the damages go to the individual users who filed the lawsuits with the bulk going toward watchdog foundations.

Google admitted the February launch of Buzz was premature. But critics knew about these allegations beforehand and called Google out on its services deficiencies, but they continued with the launch anyway. This brings into question the security of social media more than ever. It is one thing when sites are passing consumer information to advertisers, but it is quite another when the safety of your confidential and personal information is jeopardized.

Even though a precedent has stemmed from these cases, McCall and others are left unsatisfied, even with millions of dollars made in settlements. They wish to go further and set additional legal precedents that will protect the privacy of social network users by having the site that violates those laws face serious penalties.

Buzzphoria believe that companies must carefully monitor where and when their messages appear online. We adhere strictly to the Word of Mouth Marketing Association’s (WOMMA) Code of Ethics along with those set fourth by the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), as well as our own sense of keeping our clients’ best interests in mind.

Microsoft announced recently a partnership with Facebook that would take the first step of a long-sought after goal to integrate social media and Internet search. Microsoft Bing will allow users to enter search terms and view responses as well as feedback from matches to those searched items from their Facebook “community.” For example, if someone should entering their Bing a search for a steakhouse, they might find several names of places in the area, but they will also find that a number of their friends have “liked” a specific steakhouse on their Facebook page. This has been a goal of search engines for some time and this marks the first step being taken in a new front of social media marketing.

You better believe that companies are taking that front very very seriously. Crown Imports EVP, which brings in Corona Beers, has launched a campaign centered around Corona Light to make it the most “Liked” beer on Facebook. Crown has purchased a large electronic display in New York’s Time Square urging people to “Make Us The Most Liked.” Not to buy Corona Light or drink Corona Light, but to make them the most liked on Facebook. To sink serious money into an advertising program such as that adds to the validity of the social market. Corona Light ranks eighth among light beer sales, but has risen in consumer sales since August while its competitors – Bud Light, Miller Light, Coors Light etc. – have declined in sales. And this is something that for certain will continue. If an average conusmer is sitting at home some night and is going to look for a movie to go see, he or she might go on Bing and check show times. If that person sees that 15 of their friends have seen and “liked” The Social Network, then they might be inclined to go see that.

Of course this brings into question the protection of personal information displayed on Facebook and other social media site – something which already has brought into question in the past. However, Mircosoft and Facebook, both, of course, have stated that personal information will not be taken or pulled or pirated or used. But with all that aside, this major push from a top company brings to the forefront the importance advertiser and companies alike are putting on social mediums, and how that is now paying off. Now, however, it will become on more important on more of a micro level with seeking after “likes.”

Buzzphoria will take that initiative and plan with the companies from the start to create a plan – a social media marketing strategy – whether it be gather “likes” on face to increase search engine optimization. Do you want your company to come up on the first page of a Google or Bing search? Who doesn’t? Of course an increase in exposure will get you company’s name on the mind of the consumer, but just where is that consumer located?

From early 2010 until the beginning of the summer, two Facebook users allege that the social networking site leaked users’ personal information to advertisers and marketers. David Gould and Mike Robertson claim that from February to May, Facebook leaked a generous amount of information about users who clicked on ads via refer headers. The clicks transmitted enough data to marketers that they could specifically identify the people (through their Facebook account) who arrive on the advertisers’ site after clicking on ads on Facebook. The pair claim that this violates federal and state privacy laws, as well as Facebook’s own privacy policy it ensures to all its users.

This is not the first time Facebook – or other social networking sites – have been accused of privacy violations. Just last year, two computer scientists published the report, “On the Leakage of Personally Identifiable Information via Online Social Networks,” which focused on how networking sites could be leaking personally identifiable information to marketers. One example given in an article published on MediaPost.com, if a gay Facebook users was struggling to come out of the closet, he or she might be view a Facebook gay support group page. If they should click on one of the ads on the page, the advertiser would then know that person was on a gay support group page, as well as their personal information given on their personal profile.

With just the click of the mouse, this person’s personal information – as well as the information from all the pervious pages they have visited – have been made available to advertisers and marketers, and what’s to stop the marketers from blindly soliciting these people? The truth – nothing. And what’s to stop these marketers from sharing information? Nothing. There exists no checks and balance system in online social media and marketing. Privacy laws exist, but it’s readily apparent how well those are followed if these allegations turn out to be true and Facebook glitches pass this information to its advertisers. Even so, nothing exists to check and see where these marketers obtained this information – it’s a roundabout way of “Everybody gets what they get,” and they will all use what they get.

Information needs to be protected, whether it be on a social media networking site or directly given to advertisers and marketers. For instance, when people sign up for Google Alerts and receive emails throughout the day because they want to monitor particular terms or information, they are trusting Google that they don’t need to worry about what else Google might do with that information or that they’ll have to deal with unsolicited, marketing emails. Much the same way they sign up for Google Alerts or other updates, people will sign up with marketers to receive emails about their products so they can be advertised to as opposed to a blind solicitation and are forced to wonder how a marketer got their information and what else they might be doing with it.

At Buzzphoria, we strictly adhere to WOMMA’s (Word of Mouth Marketing Association) Code of Ethics http://womma.org/ethics/code/intro/ and those of PRSA (Public Relations Society of America) http://www.prsa.org/AboutPRSA/Ethics/?utm_source=prsa_website&utm_medium=top_nav_intelligence&utm_campaign=ethics_nav. It is our feeling that as marketers, we need to provide consumers with a level of confidence when dealing with brands and companies not only to be transparent and authentic but to also protect the trust a consumer places in our hands when they provide us with personal information.

In a time when it seems to be a no-brainer for most companies to make the switch from analog to digital marketing initiatives, marketing strategists are making important decisions not only about which digital markets to reach out to, but also how much time and money could and should be allotted to digital expansion.

Enter a new study from the CMO Council and Accenture shows that not all Chief Marketing Officers (CMOs) are gung-ho about investing company funds into digital outlets.

According to the study, most CMOs agree that digitization is important — 78 percent agreed with the survey statement, “digital channels are important to their organization.” Also, half of those that were surveyed agreed that “Technology now underpins and shapes the entire customer experience.”

However, when asked if they’re “heavily committed and invested” in interactive digital marketing strategies, only one-third of the respondents agreed that they are prepared. Which begs the question: If so many marketing professionals feel that bridging the gap from analog to digital is essential to the future of their company, why haven’t they invested the necessary time and funds to do so?

(Un)Preparedness — Of the CMOs that were polled in the study, only 38 percent said they “believed their organization was prepared to exploit the opportunities presented by digital marketing channels.” So what about the other 62 percent who say they don’t feel that they’re ready to take advantage of the growing digital climate?

· 59 percent say they feel that they don’t have the funding for digital upgrades.

· 46 percent say that there is a disconnect between how digital marketing operates, and general understanding among senior management that curbs digital marketing investments.

(Lack of) Confidence — Perhaps even more daunting is the number of CMOs that agreed that they know how their customers utilize digital outlets. Only 27 percent concurred, “We know what we need to know about customers’ usage of our digital channels.”

Here at Buzzphoria, we understand that it takes a multi-layered approach when it comes to understanding the ins and outs of digital marketing. We help our clients find ways to bridge the gap that stands between companies who understand how important digital marketing has become, and what it takes to effectively understand and tap those essential resources. In an ever-increasing digitized business climate we believe that it is absolutely essential for companies to understand which trends their target audience is most likely to follow, and finally how to effectively meld digital with traditional marketing.

Has your company decided to go head-first into what it takes to meet the needs of your digital consumer? Tell us about it!

Since the beginning of the Internet, a wild-west mentality has prevailed with people anonymously blasting articles and blogs with caustic comments. The authors and bloggers are stunned and left shaking their heads wondering about the anger and venom they’ve suffered.

For decades the Internet hasn’t held users accountable for reckless comments. But that may be changing in two ways. First, social networking sites, such as Facebook, are requiring participants to use their real names. In addition, lawsuits are also being filed against anonymous Internet users for slanderous comments or posting vital information about crimes.

Many would (and still do) argue that online anonymity will not fade away. Just imagine the sound of keyboards declaring that Internet users deserve their first amendment rights- FREEDOM OF SPEECH. So, the question is, does the first amendment cover a person who hides behind a false name only to harm others or add fuel to the fire? The answer is NO.

Consequences: It’s widely known that unruly or harsh comments associated with a person’s real persona could cost them a prospective job, clients and reputation. Hiding behind a fictitious name does not provide real protection, as digital fingerprints are easy to track.

Take for example the non-ethical behavior of companies who have asked their employees to provide glowing third party comments to impact stock price or sales. The courts have simply called this type of corporate behavior, fraud.

Here at Buzzphoria (www.buzzphoria.com), we respect the disclosure of identity standards from the Word of Mouth Marketing Association, WOMMA, which requires members to disclose their relationships or identities with consumers when they may influence a customer’s buying-decision. Our rules of the worldwide-web begin with an introduction of who we are, the name of client we represent and our purpose for responding to the blog or article. That is just the way we do business.

Telling the truth –It’s not only the right thing to do- it takes courage. For example Activision Blizzard Inc., one of the world’s largest videogame companies, boldly set guidelines for users’ online posts.

The company placed a requirement that gamers list their real names to post messages in online forums, just in time for the change to be applied to its first forums of the company’s highly anticipated “StarCraft II,” which was released in late July.  The purpose of the policy was to deflate the sometimes-nasty discussions amongst gamers.

Sadly, the policy collapsed after a widespread backlash from game users. The service is based on paid-subscriptions, and the company was concerned a revolt from consumers could mean a drop in sales.

But what is to be said about online sites that are not held at the mercy of consumers’ demand? Are they more willing to allow users to post factitious names without being held accountable for any wrong doings? A growing number of legal decisions are making it easier for lawyers to use legal proceedings to have online users’ names disclose. A move that hints the guidelines for Internet postings may shift for safety reasons, and to control unruly and malicious users.

One infamous case, the Lori Drew MySpace trial, made international headlines as the court reviewed evidence that a St. Louis suburb mom established a fake online identity to bully her daughter’s rival, who eventually committed suicide. Although the court eventually threw out the case, the judge threatened to criminalize the act of creating a fake persona online. The publicity surrounding the case echoed through the Internet community.

For now, users still have the right to their online anonymity. But based on the string of legal cases and Internet company reactions, there may soon be a major change to Internet users rights. In the meantime, users should be careful about their content, and the possible damage it may cause.

The simplest rule to follow is- use your name and stand behind your words. Why would so many users fight this?

Ok, so we’ve all received the unwanted emails offering up everything from millions in unclaimed dollars to imposter designer watches to the latest and greatest viagra-like substance, diet revolution, multi-level scheme, etc, etc, etc…

While those types of emails are considered by most of us a nuisance or spam, how aware are you of whether YOU, your brand or company has ever violated CAN-SPAM laws?

To make it easier, Buzzphoria (www.buzzphoria.com) has put together a list of the 10 essential things you need to know about CAN-SPAM compliance.

1.  What is CAN-SPAM?  Written into law in 2003, CAN-SPAM is a United States federal government measure to ensure that all email adequately identifies its origin, allows a user to remove themselves from future mailings and provides the government and ISPs a right to action against anyone not following CAN-SPAM requirements.

2.  Did you know that CAN-SPAM is only applicable to email that is sent and received in the United States? It also overrides any state level spam laws.

3.  If you have specific CAN-SPAM questions, you’ll want to refer to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).  They’re the governing body in legal prosecutions and also update CAN-SPAM’s core compliance requirements.  The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is also involved when it comes to emails that are sent to cell devices.

4. Under CAN-SPAM once a recipient has opted out of receiving your email, you may not contact them again for further marketing opportunities. An email unsubscribe operates similar to a Do-Not-Call list with telephone numbers.

5. In terms of opt-out function, landing and links CAN-SPAM requirements keep things simple for the recipient. Senders are allowed to only have the recipient take one action after landing on the unsubscribe page from an opt-out click-thru.  At that point, the recipient can click on a confirm button, check a box, etc. Senders cannot require recipients to sign into an account and perform other actions to be removed from the list or require a fee.  You must support the unsubscribe link and the resulting landing page for at least 30 days to ensure that recipients have enough time to unsubscribe. This helps avoid senders from having confusing or complicated opt out mechanisms.

6. CAN-SPAM mandates that you must remove a recipient from mailing lists or suppress sending to them within 10 days of receipt of their opt-out request.

7. Transactional email is exempt from CAN-SPAM since it is mandated by the FTC. CAN-SPAM defines transactional email as one which “facilitates an agreed-upon transaction or updates a customer in an existing business relationship.”  This definition prohibits marketing messages from being labeled as transactional although it does allow for marketing content in a transactional email. It is advised that a sender get input from someone who’s an expert in email law to certify that the content does apply to the
transactional definition.

8. CAN-SPAM requires that headers accurately reflect the originator of the email message. Failure to do so is considered fraudulent and in direct conflict of the transparency spirit of the law.

9. CAN-SPAM has no volume thresholds for enforcement.  Any amount of email sent, even if it’s just to a single recipient, is covered by CAN-SPAM.

10.  Violation of CAN-SPAM can result in monetary fines and jail time depending on the number of offenses and the sender’s intent.  Also, a sender in violation can face civil damages from private ISPs.

As with all marketing mediums, there’s a lot of dialogue and discussion on how to measure the success of a campaign or marketing initiative.  Within the social media space marketers, companies and brands have been trying to figure out the holy grail of social media measurement.  For many, they try to say that the logical metric is the number of fans or followers that a brand or company accumulates across platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.  We beg to differ.

At the end of the day, any campaign, whether it be in the social or traditional marketing space lives, breathes and dies based on how well it ultimately moves the sales meter.  While from an analytic standpoint, it’s nice to have cost per impressions and reach costs, we also need to understand that today’s consumer has “constant partial attention”.  So, while you may be reaching them with impressions, or having them click on a like button or a follow button - are you really reaching through the clutter of marketing messages and noise that are competing for that consumer’s attention?

In reality, many consumers will click a like button or a follow button because a friend of a friend of a friend of the marketer reached the consumer and told them to click.  They’ll click and never look back.  So, at the end of the day, you’ve got a false population of fans/likes/followers who could care less about the messages they’re being blasted via Twitter, Facebook and the other platforms in which the brand is trying to engage their attention.

From our standpoint, the real measurement of both traditional and social media marketing success is multi-layered and lies between the actual engagement of those consumers — are they becoming evangelists?, are they engaging with your brand or company?, are you having viable dialogues that bring value to the consumer (and to the brand)?, and - most importantly - is there a positive impact to your brand or company’s bottom line???

How are you measuring your current campaign success?  We’d love to hear your thoughts…