One of the first things new employees do is create a “signature block” for their e-mails. These half a dozen lines or so, consisting of your contact info, plop themselves at the bottom of every e-mail you send. Yet few people put any thought into their e-signature, let alone alter it after it’s typed.

This modus operandi reflects a 1.0 mindset. Let’s upgrade it.

First, think of the e-signature the same way you think of business cards: they reflect upon your organization’s brand. This is why every employee’s card looks the same and contains the same basic information: because each flows from a uniform design template.

Yet most organizations treat the e-signature as an afterthought. They’ll hire someone to design a business card, stationary, and even envelopes and labels, but utterly neglect e-mail—which, of course, reaches far more people than do the aforementioned materials combined.

As a result, each employee fashions his own e-signature. Some people include their job title; others don’t. Some link to the company Web site; others link to the company’s social networks (or their own). Some prefer hyphens or periods to parenthesis in listing a phone number; others want to abbreviate “Parkway” as “Pkwy” or “Pkwy.” Still others include a quotation, while others favor fancy fonts.

Everyone gets the basic info across, but these differences make your organization look sloppy and unprofessional. After all, you wouldn’t allow each employee to design his own business card, would you?

By contrast, let’s say you developed a template that standardized these data, so that everyone’s e-signature was uniform. The template might exhibit your organization’s colors, publicize your tagline, link to your Web site. Your recipients, no doubt, would be impressed that your firm is organized, detail-minded, savvy.

Equally important—yet overlooked even more—are e-mails sent from your smartphone. By default, a mobile signature consists of advertising such as, “Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry” or “Sent via iPhone.” But just as you wouldn’t let the vendor that printed your annual reports stamp its imprint on each page, so you shouldn’t give corporate giants free ads in your e-mails. Instead, reserve this precious real estate for yourself (or at least for humor, as in “Sent using my thumbs; please excuse typoss”).

Finally, reconsider the content of your e-signature. Rather than limiting yourself to titles and numbers, why not add a line to promote one of your current projects? As with Twitter, a succinct, catchy sentence that’s hyperlinked is most effective. For example, given a project for the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, you might write, “How do you rebrand general aviation’s leading advocate?”

Again, consistency is crucial. To maximize your branding, not only should everyone participate; everyone also should use the same one-liners and change them at agreed-upon intervals.

None of these suggestions is revolutionary. To the contrary, they constitute modest tweaks. Yet it’s through such seeming minutiae that good brands distinguish themselves from great brands.

Which are you?

By Sean Wagman of Adfero Group

It appears that in social advertising these days, too much web space has been dedicated to writing eye-catching ad copy. That is all well and good, but ad copy will not make or break your social ad campaign. Most people will not take the time to read your copy. Instead, they will look at the picture, the headline, and a few keywords.

Instead, a savvy marketer will spend most of their time thinking through their targets and how they will reach them.

Look, I used to be like you. I spent most of my time pouring over the copy, making sure the 135 characters were maximized to their fullest extent. And on Facebook, targeting can be a bit overwhelming, with options ranging to geo-targeting (all the way down to the city) to gender to marital status to other Facebook pages.

But, once you have stopped worrying about the totality of targeting options, here are three easy tips to ensure that your targeting is top notch (that is, if you do not have the hundreds of thousands of dollars required for an extensive market research campaign).

1. When in doubt, borrow from others

Small dollars for research should never equal poor targeting, not when you have so much content at your fingertips. Did you know that a lot of time and money goes into placing advertisements on the websites you visit? The same thing goes for the magazines that you read. A great way to generate ideas for targeting is to see the advertisements that are run in websites and magazines that you give to your community to read and see if they have a presence on Facebook. And presto – you have your bootleg version of Market Research.

2. Go where your audience already is

This one is sort of obvious but still needs to be said. Certain demographics like certain things. Moms will like motherly things like Gerber and Motts. Younger Men (18-34) will like Bud Light and Call of Duty. And seniors will like the AARP and the way things used to be. Don’t over think your options and get too cute.

3. If the fish aren’t biting, go where they are

In the last campaign I ran, after 2-3 days, I felt there were a few targets on various ads that were dragging down the overall performance of the campaign. So instead of leaving those items in there, I adjusted my targets. I took out 10-15 of the underperforming targets and replaced them other items that were a bit more broad and popular. The results were what I expected: more people started clicking on my ads. That is the great thing about social advertising; nothing is set in stone and everything can be adjusted on the fly.

And remember, when thinking through your list of targets, not everyone has the same awesome taste that you have. The more minds you have brainstorming possible ideas, the more likely you are to hit upon something you never could have thought of on your own. For the most recent campaign I ran, I never would have hit upon some of my best targets if I didn’t ask for help first. Collaboration should always be encouraged, no matter what.

P.S. – The first person to successfully @ message me on Twitter with the movie I stole my title from gets a rare and elusive #FF from me.

Darell published a book called KaBOOM! How One Man Built a Movement to Save Play last month, coinciding with the organization’s 15th anniversary. it has reached the #4 spot on The New York Times Best Sellers list. Darell says the book is a platform to excite the organization’s base, open itself up to new audiences, and convince them that play is not a luxury but a necessity. He hopes to turn people into advocates for play, so that if recess is being eliminated in their schools, they will show up at school board or city council meetings and write op-eds. KaBOOM! has also created an online tool that allows people to input and find information about local parks and playgrounds and organize events there. The tool will become available on a mobile app in three weeks. By mapping out parks, KaBOOM! can also overlay race, health, and crime statistics and get a better understanding of where the deficit really exists.

To read the entire article on BisNow, click here.

Ownership of TV Sets Falls in U.S. (NY Times)
As more consumers go online to fulfill their entertainment needs, television ownership drops for the first time in twenty years.

The study, conducted by the Nonprofit Technology Network, Common Knowledge, and Blackbaud, looked at organizations of all types and sizes. Nonprofit Technology Network executive director Holly Ross tells us one of the most common questions she gets is “Can I raise money with social media?” The survey found that 46% of organizations are raising $1 to $10K through social networks—up from 38% the year before. Only 0.4% of organizations raise more than $100K per year on social networks. But not all of these “Master Social Fundraisers” have giant budgets. In fact, nearly a third have budgets of less than $5 million. What they do have in common are massive followings. The average Facebook following of a “Master Social Fundraiser” is nearly 100,000—more than 15 times the average non-profit. In addition, 30% have at least two staff dedicated to social media, compared to 2% of the sector as a whole.

Holly tells us a new breed of non-profit is emerging that exists almost exclusively in the social media space. These groups sometimes don’t have traditional websites, but rely on Facebook, blogs, Twitter, and YouTube. She recalls meeting a guy from one such organization who was talking about e-mail as the “traditional” form of fundraising. She had to correct him to say that traditional fundraising was actually done with direct mail. Holly says it’s all tied up in a larger trend of what it means to be a non-profit. Social entrepreneurs and mixed models of business and charity are changing what it means to do good.

To read the entire article on BisNow, click here.

Let’s face it: If you don’t show up in a search engine’s first 10 results, you don’t exist. Indeed, that Google has made predictive search the default setting only hardens this race to the top. (According to the latest report from comScore, Google continues to process two out of every three queries in the U.S.)

Fortunately, this is a solvable problem—especially if your content contains a unique word or phrase.

Consider this article from S&T Snapshots, an e-zine I once edited. Its subject is something called SportEvac. As the below screen shots show, simply by adding this word to (1) the Web page’s title (“DHS | SportEvac: Choreographing a Stadium Stampede”) and (2) its in-body header (“SportEvac: Choreographing a Stadium Stampede”), we ensured that Google would find it and rank it highly—in fact, first.

Sure, the article itself is dotted with references to SportEvac, but this isn’t enough. Google prizes repetition, and in the right places.

Similarly, Google [“MagViz”] and [“Cell-All”]. The reason the Snapshots on these subjects appear so highly—both second—isn’t a secret. It’s the result of search engine optimization.

By contrast, Google [“LED Incapacitator”]. Nowhere in the top 50 results is the Snapshot that illustrates this so-called puke ray. Why not? Because neither the page title (“DHS | S&T Snapshots – Borders & Maritime”) nor the in-body header (“Enough to Make You Sick”)  mentions “LED Incapacitator.”

By adding the key word or phrase to the key places, you too can master the Google game.

Cross-posted from Ad Week

Newspaper Business Model: Unsustainable in Any Form
The ‘newspapers are dying’ story line is hardly novel

U.S. newspapers as we know them will be extinct by 2017.

So says Ross Dawson, a self-proclaimed “futurist” from Australia who released a global newspaper extinction time line in October. Dawson’s latest time line makes country-by-country predictions based on factors including a nation’s demographics, consumer behaviors and technological capacities. Unsurprisingly, the U.S. newspaper empire is predicted to crumble first, given Americans’ widespread adoption of handheld technology and the declining state of the nation’s newspaper industry. The newspaper will apparently endure a slow and painful death around the globe, spanning from 2017 to 2040—and, perhaps, beyond. (He predicted that Australian newspapers would meet their demise by 2022.)

The “newspapers are dying” story line is hardly novel. Most media gurus agree that the paper-and-ink newspaper is on the decline and will eventually become a relic. Yet many, including Dawson, believe that the news organizations themselves will survive in some transformed state. Forbes’ media columnist Dirk Smilie, for instance, is another one who argues that newspapers will stage a comeback after widespread efforts to cut costs and staff. In some cases, he expects that new management will provide much-needed energy to the dying organizations.

The rationale: people have to get their news from somewhere, right? If a market for news content still exists, it’s believed, newspaper organizations will just have to adapt their methods of delivery. Specifically, they’ll have to abandon newsstands and paperboys in favor of Web sites, blogs and mobile apps.

But this confidence in the newspaper industry’s ability to adapt is misplaced. The newspaper business model is simply not flexible enough to undergo such a dramatic transformation—especially given the increasingly competitive online news industry.

One example is The Huffington Post, which now trails only The New York Times in monthly Web traffic.Some reports note that it regularly outperforms other major dailies like USA Today, The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post. Yes, The Huffington Post is primarily an aggregator. It produces little original content and certainly nothing on the scale of a major daily’s investigative reporting. But the growing Web site maintains a full-time staff of approximately 185 employees. More importantly, after struggling to monetize its popularity for the past several years, Forbes magazine expects HuffPo to triple its revenues in 2010.

If—or, according to Dawson, when—The  New York Times stops printing newspapers, it will be able to eliminate an incredible amount in overhead costs: no more paper, no more ink, no more delivery trucks, no more production staff. Yet even a streamlined, paperless New York Times will have operating costs that are simply unsustainable. In particular, it’s difficult to envision how the organization—which had 1,332 newsroom employees alone in 2008—will ever be able to operate on a shoestring staff of 200.

And HuffPo is only the tip of the iceberg of competition. National newspapers once dominant in niche areas no longer enjoy monopolies. For example, Politico’s coverage has forced The Washington Post to fight for its once faithful political audience. In-depth investigative reporting is increasingly being performed by nonprofit organizations.

Even regional dailies’ classic areas of coverage are in jeopardy. ESPN.com, for instance, has launched a series of Web sites providing localized coverage in regional sports markets.

A lot can happen in the next seven years. New technologies could present entirely new challenges to newspapers and their upstart competitors. Creative solutions could emerge. But today it seems unrealistic to expect that newspaper organizations will be able find a profitable business model to support the type of dramatic transformation that is necessary to compete.

The newspaper business model appears financially unsustainable, both in its current form and any conceivable future variation. From a business perspective, 2017 may be too generous a prediction.

Over the past year, Adfero Group and the National Press Club have sponsored the Get PR Smart series to focus on exactly these sorts of tactics: how to use the latest social media tools, how to connect more directly with a target audience, and how to effectively engage in media monitoring.

The next event – scheduled for Friday, December 10  –  will take a different approach.  The seminar will address one of the most important, but often overlooked, subjects for both PR professionals and clients: Establishing a Meaningful Client/Agency Relationship.

An effective communications strategy requires a healthy, productive collaboration between a client and its agency.  Yet, too often, critical mistakes are made early in the formation of the agency-client relationship.

For clients, the approach used to select an agency can be problematic down the road.  It is natural to choose a PR firm based on its past experience, its expertise in a particular issue, and its general reputation.  But if the criteria end there, clients never evaluate a firm on traits like responsiveness and thoughtfulness – two keys to a successful relationship and a successful campaign.

Particularly here in D.C., where the need for communications support can come up unexpectedly, a client’s chemistry with a prospective agency is often a nonfactor.  But fit matters – no matter how good an end product may be, an agency should be enjoyable to work with.  Clients should take the time to evaluate a potential firm from all angles.

Agencies also make early missteps by overpromising to win a client’s business.  Optimism is great, but an agency must be realistic about its own capabilities and what is actually possible to achieve with a given campaign.  In the professional services industry, it is widely accepted that client satisfaction is equal to the perceived results minus the client’s original expectations.  Overly lofty predictions by the agency will ultimately lead to a dissatisfied client (and probably the end of the relationship).

To avoid disappointment on both ends, it is crucial for clients and agencies to set reasonable expectations at the beginning of a relationship or project.

At the Get PR Smart event in December, my colleague Shellie Edge and I will focus on what sorts of expectations should be set for a client-agency relationship to be productive.  Here is a preview:

- Communicating: The agency needs to receive clear expectations about how to communicate with the client.  For example, are standing meetings necessary?  Is email or phone preferable?  Establishing these protocols at the outset will prevent conflict down the road.
- Tracking Progress: The agency should establish how to update the client on a project’s progress.  For example, depending on the nature of a project, it might be appropriate to give the client access to a collaborative account management tool.  In other cases, clients may not want or need that level of access.
- Measuring Results: Any communications campaign should have measurable metrics for success.  The agency needs to establish corresponding reporting protocols that allow a client to see how those metrics are being met.

To learn more about how to establish and nurture a productive and health client-agency relationship, register today for the next Get PR Smart event.

Early results for Heritage indicate the answer is yes. After only a week on iTunes, the Heritage app had 2,500 downloads as of Monday. Not bad considering we spent less than $1,500 to build the app, a modest investment considering the potential upside of the product.

Scola’s review is mostly upbeat and positive about each of the three apps, but she’s also skeptical about their broader appeal. She concludes by asking this question: “Is anyone seeking out these apps as they seek out research, news and points of view?”

It’s a hard question to answer after only one week on the market. It would be nice to have detailed demographic data on each of the 2,500 individuals who have downloaded our app to know if they’re existing Heritage supporters, Capitol Hill staff or Tea Party activists who might be unfamiliar with our organization. Chances are that most have some connection to Heritage already and heard about the app from our e-mail or Twitter promotion.

Congressional staff, as Scola suspected, are a target audience we’d like to reach. Staff-issued BlackBerrys still dominate on Capitol Hill, and according to National Journal, 93% have one. The iPhone comes in second at 14%, based on the 2009 survey. Even more stunning is that Capitol Hill staff average about two mobile devices, meaning some are carrying a BlackBerry and an iPhone. No one in Washington is more addicted to mobile.

According to the same National Journal survey, congressional staff say their mobile devices are essential for things other than e-mail. Approximately 60% use their smartphones each day to get the latest news and information.

Heritage set out to design an app that would address this trend of news consumption. We wanted to simplify the way users consume our latest content — in much the same way people read the latest news on the Huffington Post app or scan headlines on the New York Times app.

But we also wanted to make it different from Heritage.org, which already performs very well on the iPhone. While the website organizes information by topic and features a robust search, the app displays the content chronologically. Scola criticized the decision, but it was intentional.

National Journal’s research indicates the focus of mobile usage is on recent and breaking stories. It made sense that Heritage app users would be looking for our perspective on the latest issues brewing on Capitol Hill. With so many congressional staffers addicted to their mobile devices, it should be a welcome addition.

My colleague, Tim McGovern, Heritage’s online communications director, spent mostly nights and weekends working on the iPhone app. He’s now keeping close tabs on the usage to help direct future development, including what additional features merit consideration and whether Heritage should build an app for other mobile devices such as BlackBerry or Android.

We’re an idea factory at Heritage. And with those ideas gaining popularity amongst a growing number of Americans, we want to make sure they’re able to consume our information with ease in the palm of their hand.

Rob Bluey directs the Center for Media and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation.

I often remind people that knowing how to use social media is not the same thing as knowing how to use it strategically and tactically.

I have trained many college students (in my classes and interns at work) who claim to know how to use social media at the start of the training. By the end of the training the invariable comment that they never thought it through strategically or tactically before.

Our strategy at the Center for American Progress and Center for American Progress Action Fund is to use social media to influence influencers so they will share our ideas with their audiences. Sometimes that is simply to get our policy reports, videos, and interactive graphics out to an influential audience. Sometimes our goal is to mobilize people to take action to influence policymakers.

This means we need tactics that ensure we recruit as many influencers to our audience as possible, that we work to deepen our relationships with those influencers, and that we provide value to those influencers so they have a reason to help us. This requires a lot of research to identify influencers and a lot of outreach to engage with them once they are identified.

We use a variety of tools to do our research, more tools to facilitate our engagement, and even more tools to measure our effectiveness.

Metrics are always a big challenge with social media. Yes, new tools are always emerging to help with this effort, but few, if any do everything needed. As a result, we are forced to used a multitude of tools and assemble our metrics from them.

Like any effort to measure success, this is involves operationalizing our success metrics. For example, one measure of success is driving people to our website to read our products. Tools like Bit.ly and HootSuite help us measure the number of clicks on the links we share, but experience shows that not every click results in a page view (discrepancies between Bit.ly and Google Analytics, for example, are different by an average of 8%, but that gap varies as the number of clicks increase).

Measuring influence is a lot harder. Size of audience is important, as is the number of Twitter and Facebook impressions generated by our posts, but that doesn’t translate directly into actual views (much as gross rating points for a TV ad doesn’t exactly translate into eyeballs on your ads). We like to use a combination of measures, including number of retweets on Twitter and the number of likes, shares, and comments on Facebook. As well, we like to look at the influence ratings for the people sharing our messages (on Twitter you can use Twitalyzer or Klout).

Moving forward, I expect that these tools will get better. One of the better premium services, Thrive from SmallAct.com has good metrics already and are developing enhancements as we speak.

So, returning to Jeff’s assessment, as you can see, a real social media strategy goes far beyond posting things to social media. You need clear goals, effective tactics, and a program to evaluate your efforts so you can refine them. Only then do you really have a social media strategy.