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!

The Michigan Business and Professional Association (MBPA) has named Shazaaam!/Buzzphoria LLC as one of Metropolitan Detroit’s “101 Best and Brightest Companies to Work For,” marking the fourth year in a row that the agency has been named.

“We are proud to receive this high honor once again,” said Adrienne Lenhoff, Shazaaam!/Buzzphoria founder and president. “We take special care in making our workplace a creative and fun place to work for our employees,” she added, “and the results show in both our work for clients and the dedication that our staff shows every day in accomplishing their goals.”

Shazaaam!/Buzzphoria and 100 other businesses in greater Michigan will be honored at an awards luncheon on Wednesday, September 22, 2010, at The Dearborn Inn, a Marriott hotel located in Dearborn, Mich.

Shazaaam!/Buzzphoria, Novi, Mich.-based businesses, have also received numerous recognitions from Crain’s Detroit Business named as a “Cool Place to Work.” The selection of Shazaaam!/Buzzphoria, along with other winning companies, affirms to its employees, clients, vendors, and to the business community at large, that it is committed to being one of the Best and Brightest companies to work for.

MBPA qualifies companies using independent research that evaluates company communication, community initiatives, compensation and benefits. The organization also reviews other categories such as diversity and multiculturalism, employee education and development, employee engagement and commitment, and work-life balance.

“Because the companies selected have created impressive organizational value and business results through their policies and best practices in human resource management, we believe it is important to recognize their accomplishments, especially at a time when all businesses are being challenged in ways never before seen,” said Jennifer Kluge, MBPA executive vice president and chief operating officer.

Metro Detroit’s 101 Best and Brightest Companies to Work For is sponsored by AT&T Michigan, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Corp!, Magazine, Davenport University, DTE Energy, Pepsi Bottling Group, Douglas Marketing, The Designate, Strategic Staffing Solutions, WJBK Fox 2, HRAGD, the Detroit Athletic Club and McGraw Wentworth.
About Shazaaam!/Buzzphoria

Founded in 2001, Shazaaam! (shazaaam.com) is an award-winning, independently owned, group of affiliated communications companies headquartered in Novi, Mich. Shazaaam! Public Relations, Social Media Marketing Agency Buzzphoria (buzzphoria.com) and experiential marketing company Promo Marketing Team (promomarketingteam.com) specialize in traditional public relations, social media marketing, product sampling and street-level marketing promotions and events, respectively, on a national level. Specialties include media and public relations, guerilla marketing, online viral marketing, electronic and new media development, mobile tours, product samplings, social networking and event coordination and management.

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.

One of the things we’re always asked is, “What are the rules of etiquette for the social media and online world?” It can be a confusing question because each online venue is unique in its form and functionality. Conduct deemed perfectly acceptable within Twitter can be construed quite differently on say Facebook.

There is a Wild West attitude held by many Internet users that would make the first lady of manners and etiquette Emily Post say SMH-shaking my head! Anonymous postings are often down right nasty, rude, embarrassing – and, for a brand or company, can be devastating to an otherwise sterling reputation.

There are however, certain rules of the road that apply universally. Whether you’re in cyberspace or not manners count, and just because someone can’t see you doesn’t mean they can’t hurt you.

The following is the I.R.E.S.P.E.C.T. system for online interaction. This list is intended to be a guideline that everyone can easily use when interacting online, but it is by no means comprehensive. Every situation is different and poses its own unique set of challenges. But hopefully, by keeping in mind these simple rules, we can make the web a friendlier and more productive environment for everyone.

I.R.E.S.P.E.C.T.

I - Introductions Matter
Don’t jump on the friendship bandwagon without an introduction first.
If you’re looking to make friends, telling them your name and how you might know them is the least you can do.

R- Reciprocity
The rule of reciprocity is as old humanity itself- If you want to get something, you have to give first.
So before you ask for a favor online make sure you’ve done something first to merit a positive response.

E-Engage
The reason it’s called “social media” is messages can be both sent and received.
One-way traditional communication will never be as effective as authentic human engagement and it isn’t much appreciated anyways.

S-Second Guess
Ask yourself this question before submitting anything, “Is this providing relevant content or is it just self-promotion and ego?”
A little bit of self-promotion is fine, but posting unrelated content to blogs or forums with specific topics and never contributing anything but promotional materials is annoying and not really what “social media” is about.

P- Provide Content
Less than 30% of everyone online is a power-content creator (i.e has their own blog, uploads video, owns a website and updates regularly etc) ,and the other 70% can be categorized as passive viewers or light-content creators (i.e. email and limited instant messaging)
People follow content creators because they are the ones posting answers, writing how-to articles, commenting in blogs etc. - essentially providing solutions for everyday life.
They are the thought leaders and the respect they get as such can be measured in dollars. New business deals, jobs and enhanced reputation are the rewards of a power-content creator. Source- Pew Internet & American Life Project

E- End Bad Relationships
Users who spam and provide nothing to communities aren’t the people you want to associate with. Save yourself and everyone else time in the long run by un-friending them now.

C- Control Your Image
People say things every day online that they would never utter in public or face-to-face with real individuals. What you say online though is even more important than what is said in person because there’s the potential for millions to hear your words.

T-Try to Listen More than You Speak
This might be the most important rule of them all. Listening to what people are saying, whether it be about your brand, your company or just you personally, is key to managing healthy online relationships and heading off potential problems.

While internet users are diverse in everyway, bringing varied backgrounds, customs and beliefs to their online conversations, respect for people sharing cyberspace should be the common rule. Following this simple guide would certainly make the Internet a kinder place to visit and could get the Emily Post J.

A big question for those interested in social media marketing today is effectiveness. What drives customers and businesses to my site? How do I engage my customer base to create a two-way dialogue that promotes positive interaction?

A recent survey conducted by MarketingProfs in September 2009 of business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-consumer (B2C) marketers found that the marketing tactics most often used on social media sites aren’t necessarily the best.

Simply friending customers and attempting to drive traffic to corporate websites with status updates on Facebook, ranked among the most common tactics. But brands cannot expect to gain traction with these simplistic one-way communications.

Looking at MarketingProf’s survey of B2B and B2C marketers, the most effective tactic for consumer-oriented companies was creating a Facebook application. However, less than 25 percent of the total number of those surveyed used this approach. A close second for both B2C and B2B marketers were fan surveys, although ranked as the third most-common tactic attempted.

Coming in dead-last as effective were Facebook ads. Even targeted ads, using Facebook’s improved ad targeting package came up short.

Not a surprise really when you recognize that social media users, especially those savvy to traditional communication techniques, expect companies to provide value, interactivity and ultimately open up a human dialogue.

Twitter is another application where the goals don’t match the approach most marketers’ take.

Because of Twitter’s features, brevity and fairly recent entrance into the web its user base is different from Facebook’s and so is its utility to marketers. Those who used Twitter as a tool for monitoring and person-to-person communication, instead of as a sales channel, reported 40 percent or higher success rates.

Buzzphoria knows that success in social media means going that extra mile down the road less traveled to interact with customers and clients in a dynamic way. One-way traditional communications aren’t how real people talk to one another and it shouldn’t be how companies going forward address their consumers.

Has your company embraced social media’s human communication?