Taking a break from our regularly scheduled Top 10 Ways to Ruin Your Website series, I recentlt was emailed a question I wanted to share.

Most business people have heard of Twitter, but still have no real sense of how to use it to promote their business. So why should they add this to their daily PR & marketing activities?

And here is my response:

I get asked these questions all the time by clients and when I’m speaking. “Right, I know Twitter is supposed to be the new shiny thing but I just don’t see what it can do for me.” This is usually followed by some comment like: “I don’t care about what someone eats for breakfast” or “no one wants to know about my personal life”. I used to spend a whole lot of time answering the question and explaining, but I’ve gotten down to saying just this:

Let me give you the top 3 reasons you should be using twitter for your business*:

1. Industry Pulse.

2. Polling.

3. News.

1. Imagine having the ability to put your finger on the pulse of your industry.

There are 3 groups of people you need to follow. Don’t follow the people who talk about their coffee break!

• Follow your perfect client, anyone from your target audience. Find out what they are thinking, what matters to them. Ask them questions! (And I mean really ask them questions, not: message me if you have a question about such-and-such)
• Follow your competition. Get in touch with what’s going on in your industry. Learn from their mistakes and advice. This alone makes Twitter invaluable to me.
• Follow people who are movers & shakers in your physical area. Search by city and find out who knows what’s going down. Then you can know and get involved if it helps you business. And, it’s incredible when you become one of the people who others ask: where should I be this week?

2. Polling.

Once you’ve followed the big 3, ask them questions. Smaller companies can’t afford focus groups and big surveys. So do it on Twitter. Ask about products, what they do or don’t use and why. Ask what they think of work you’ve done, etc. I poll before I speak so I have immediate feedback about my topic before I even say a word. Then I know where to focus.

3. Relevant, Fast, News:

My example of the overwhelming ability of Twitter as a news source was the terrorist attacks on Mumbai around Thanksgiving last year. I had CNN on my TV and Twitter streaming live on the Mumbai topic on my laptop. I was getting news on Twitter 30-40 minutes faster than through the television. In fact at some points CNN just read off Twitter and blog entries or used photos/video posted there from people in the middle of everything. But that’s not even the part that hit me hardest. It was that people were using Twitter to find their loved ones. A list of missing people went up on a blog and people forwarded it along through twitter and when someone was found they’d update the list. The news couldn’t even keep up with that, they just listed the website.

If that’s not reason enough to consider spending ten minutes on Twitter while you’re having your bagel in the morning and then ten minutes when you’re winding down from work, I don’t know what is.

*Exceptions are: Twitter is not your target audience. Seriously, research it. I can tell you really quickly who twitter attracts, if that’s not your market don’t waste your time. But since Twitter normally attracts business owners, moms, baby boomers, early tech adopters, bloggers and male executives… that relates to most people on some level, so this disclaimer is mostly just to make naysayers feel better.

So... what do you call something that's dead but still continues to move around and as though it was living? Zombies! Is that what news and print marketing has become? I mean, we constantly hear about how traditional news is "dead" and we're moving on to a digital age. But if newspapers are dead, why do I still hear about articles in the Dallas Morning News and I see at least one person with a newspaper in this coffee shop right now. The living dead are among us (on tables, no less)!

What's really going on is that more "traditional" form isn't going away; its evolving. Sites like the NYTimes.com are just changing to meet with public consumption of information. This blog is not about predicting the death print or anything like that but to point out a small flaw in many online marketers' logic.

Curb Your Enthusiasm

This post is based on #5 from How to Tell if Your Webmaster is Cheating on You: “Your website or social media or email or whatever is the only marketing your company needs.” I especially hear this about social media, but really anyone who seems to specialize in one form of marketing be it print, design, web or otherwise will spend a lot of time telling you how they are the best. The fact of the matter is, rarely will one form of media reach your entire audience. In online marketing, I constantly have to make sure that what I do for a client's online presence works with and not against any other form of marketing they may choose to use.

Marketing is a Gem of Many Facets

I base a lot of my articles on knowing your target market. When deciding on a medium to use, this is key. Now, you may have more than one audience to reach, or that audience may vary greatly in how they find your product. There's lots of ways to get out your message and measure its effectiveness but like my partner Edward says, "Roughly fifty percent of all marketing works, its knowing which half that's the problem."

So let's say you target audience is small business owners in their forties in the Dallas area. A great many of these people still read the Dallas Morning News, on or offline. A lot of them commute, or are mobile regularly, so signage might also be a good way to reach them. This is also one of the fastest growing demographics on Twitter and Facebook (not to mention mobile browsing). All of these might be a great marketing avenue for you, and probably work best as a whole strategy and not separate pieces.

To clarify a little, I wanted to share a case example by Jeff Hasen about how he used traditional and new media to market a company. Its worth a read.

The Zombies Live Among Us

Now that we know that zombies still walk among us, we might as well embrace them. Trying new strategies that integrate with old ones can only increase your visibility (and hopefully your client base). I don't mean don't target, just be smart about where you spend your money. But don't write off a traditional media form for being dead. I mean, if Shaun of the Dead can coexist with the living dead, than so can you!

Do you have an example of someone who used social media and traditional zombies together in a marketing campaign? We'd love to hear about them!

No one is arguing anymore about the power of Twitter. After Ashton Kutcher's showdown with CNN and the appearance of Oprah, Twitter has pretty much hit mainstream. However, its not often that a company gets to feel part of something even bigger.

We've done some consulting and design work for the Dallas County Young Republicans, and run their Twitter account. The DCYR took a keen interest in supporting the much-blogged Tax Day Tea Parties. Here's what WFAA has to say:

I got some time during the filming (which took way longer than I realized it would) to chat with David Schechter about what he thought of Twitter, personally. He told me the potential for having twitter and traditional news work together was incredible and he was excited to be a part of it. We're excited to be a part of it too.

If you are interested in using social media to further your business or movement, Veribatim is offering a number of classes right now in the Dallas area and we'd be happy to send you more information: contact@veribatim.com

Usually my posts are of a more general nature but since our company is located in Dallas, I feel it is my duty to promote an awesome new resource for Dallas: Dallogy.

Dallogy is a blog site started by Matthew Rogers, who also organizes an awesome SEO meetup. The site is the combined project of everyone involved in the Dallas Interactive Marketing meetup and its goal is to be the premiere place for Dallas Technology.

The site is just getting started but it reviews the Denton Jelly, Free Software Day and the Start-Up Tech Happy Hour with Alexander Muse. The site allows anyone to contribute after a simple registration, so you can post your own tech events and news. The site also lists different tech businesses in the Dallas area and other tech meetings.

Dallas has long been on the verge of an explosion in the tech-industry. Now more than ever, sites like Dallogy are important to help everyone keep up-to-date with the wealth of events and information out there.

So stop by, list an event and show your support for the internet central of Dallas tech: Dallogy.

You know exactly the kind of site I'm talking about: 5 minute intro, loud repetitive music, no where to click through to the information you are doing a quick web search for: Flasher sites. Over all, there is nothing wrong with flash, it can be a beautiful addition to a website but like all things, moderation is the key.

Flash is one of those things many businesses want on their site because "it looks cool". But flash has reputation for being inappropriate to the website's content and annoying to its viewers. Also, flash was impossible to optimize. So if you had any text built into your website that you wanted search engines to find, it was a nightmare to program.

However, in July, Adobe released a product that should make Flash websites searchable. This is good news for Flashers but many web designers are less than thrilled. So my small warning is, Flash is the spice of a website but its your content and overall presentation that make your sale. Keep this in mind when you're designing your site and remember, no one likes a Flasher.

So I'm at the library and I notice this front page article displayed near the book drop. The cover of The Atlantic says in big colorful letters: Is Google Making Us Stupid? written by Nicholas Carr. Of course, this sparked my interest so I picked it up and read. After finishing it, I felt the need to respond. I found the article online but there is no way to reply (surprise, surprise). So I decided to post this in my blog instead.

Let me give you a quick synopsis... in case you don't want to read such a long article. Mr. Carr claims that he has trouble sitting down and reading lengthy articles or novels. He believes this is because the internet is programming the general public so that they cannot assimilate large chunks of information. He accuses Google of making information too available. He ties this all in to a scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey where Dave unplugs the insane supercomputer HAL.

To start with, since Mr. Carr cited a personal experience as an example, I'd like to do so as well. Personally, I have no problem digesting large pieces of text. I read lengthy novels every week, check blogs, keep up with tech and marketing articles and occasionally treat myself to a neurology study (I know, I'm a nerd). The only problem I have is this, sometimes I don't want to stare at my computer screen, so I print out the article to read on paper. Other than that... nope, no problems with understanding or following long works.

May I suggest that Mr. Carr's problem is a result of... old age? I mean, I don't want to get too technical and lose anyone but, well, its just a thought.

Mr. Carr reports that scientific studies prove that our brains adapt based on what we experience the most. For example, if we read only novels the size of War & Peace, we create a habit and our brains expect to learn via that medium. If we only read headlines, the same thing happens. I won't argue that this is fact. However, it also proves that if we continue to read long articles or books just as often as we surf the web... this problem will not exist.

But now I challenge you: Is this really a problem? Let's say all Mr. Carr's assumptions are true, the majority of people learn primarily through short snippets of information. Is there any harm in this? The internet has made more information readily available than we ever thought possible. In fact, things are simpler. I used to miss the news because I was in class at 6:00. Now I can get it off their website at two a.m. if I want!

Here's a better example. Let's say you wanted to give a speech on the current politics of Iran but you're not an expert. Ten years ago you would need to access a university library and ask permission to see their foreign policy journals, if they'd let you. And even then, those journals are often a month or two behind. Then, if you wanted to quote a politician or other leading expert you'd need to track them down by phone or in person which takes time, effort and possibly money. However, today, you could just go to the CIA's website and then read some political blogs and then you could deliver something educated at the very least.

In addition, the speed at which we can now read things on the internet, gives us a chance to spend more time interpreting and analyzing what we've read. Then the reader can spend more time deciding what information is true and what can be left behind instead of spending hours getting to the heart of a one-sided argument. Don't get me wrong, I love Tolstoy, but when it comes to making a decision on who to vote for, I want to having a multitude of information that I can quickly absorb and then decide for myself what to think.

If Google makes us stupid (which I doubt it does) it is our own faults. Google and other search engines merely offer a vehicle to get to information. In fact, this article has nothing to do with Google at all, it was merely dropped in as a big name that Mr. Carr could easily point to and therefore blame. I would even go so far to say the purpose of this article is just a backlash to the internet in general. The primary motivation: Fear. The internet is big and taking over. I can understand how someone whose job security relies on the printed page might see that as a threat. Of course, on the other hand, this article appears online as well as print, so the point is relatively obsolete.

If you want to see a different response to this article please do check out Google isn't making us stupid at Lost in Translation.

I've stated my case. I believe Mr. Carr is using strawman arguments and relying mostly on sensationalism to promote his ideas. So, take a minute to consider, check out Chris's article and then let me know you think - internet: friend or foe?