A new report from eMarketer shows how combining the strengths of email and social media can lead to better results.

You'll recall around these parts the discussion of "Silent E." Now this report teases that out a little more. It's about how two complementary marketing practices can be used more wisely to engage customers in less of a disjointed way. This makes complete sense, as consumers need consistency in their interactions with brands and programs need to jump from one platform to the next almost seamlessly, while offering different benefits or levels of engagement on each.

Here are a few statistics on how social media and email will be integrated by marketers and why they think it's important.

You can find the full report, Maximizing the Email/Social Media Connection, on eMarketer's site.

As Reese's used to say, "two great tastes that taste great together."

Personally, I think it's about time. ow about you? Any plans within your organization to integrate social media & email?

Well, except for that money thing. They want the pretty much want what we all want from social networks: to connect with people they know and trust, spend some time unwinding, and share content.

The key difference is this: affluents don't want to friend a brand on Facebook - they prefer to check out fan pages. [Then again, I feel the same way. Hmm. Maybe I qualify to be rich? I can haz affluence, plze?]

What they do prefer is a user experience on the company's website that addresses their needs. Easy navigation, helpful information, perhaps even the availability of a live chat to answer any questions that might not be apparent solely through the navigation. Ultimately, I think they value their time and don't want to waste it with updates that aren't central to what they need. They want content that is relevant to them at the right point in time.

For marketers, this means a solid user experience coupled with a true customer relationship management tool. We should be at the point where we can customize content based on the visitor. Or is that a little too invasive? What do you think? 

From Unity Marketing's "How Affluent Luxury Consumers Use the Internet and Social Media"

Image courtesy of eMarketer.

When you start hearing about social media taking up more budget rather than having to struggle for dollars and attention, it's clear that the practice is gaining in legitimacy. 

Remember the days of having to gently introduce the concept, or of having to prove that in fact it's something that's a coming trend? We had to deal with skeptics - the same type of people, who maybe less than 10 years ago, doubted that the Internet was going to catch on. And we've had to deal with a struggling economy and limited funding. 

Things are a little different now. In fact, you might say that things are actually looking up. I think part of it may be that the tough economy forced marketers to be more savvy and frugal about their efforts, and social media became a natural receptacle for the underfunded. As such, it's grown in stature and maturity, and with the rise of the awareness of social networks in the general public, it's only going to get larger.

Here are a couple of charts from "The CMO Survey" undertaken by the Duke University Fuqua School of Business and the American Marketing Association, as reported by eMarketer:

When you compare the spending on social media marketing from August 2009 to February 2010, overall there's an increase of 60% in the budgets (from 3.5% to 5.6%). Similarly, the planning for the next one to five years shows a similar level of consideration as well: in August 2009, social media spending was thought to be 6.1% for the next year and 13.7% for the next five years; and now, it's more like 9.9% in the next year and 17.7% in the next five years.

And since this was a survey of CMOs, it's a good indication that these budget predictions may get some traction, rather than just being a  fond wish of pundits. It's a relief to see something that doesn't resemble a death spiral in this economy.

Photo credit: emrank (Flickr)

Say you work for a brand. Customers have more access to you than ever - and you've got a wealth of choices as far as channels go: traditional marketing, online & interactive, gaming, mobile, social media, etc.

But for your customers that are interested in interacting online, what do you think they want from you? And what should you do when you connect with them? Look no further! eMarketer Daily has very helpfully published a piece on Lightspeed Research's "Global Web Index."

What do customer want from the brands they love? Information, mostly (well, after a good discount, anyway). Ultimately, they want value. They're not there to be "friends," or to get your time-wasting app - they want something that's relevant to them that helps push the relationship forward.

Something to think about when thinking about your online strategy.

Chart courtesy of eMarketer.

I originally wrote this over a year ago, but I think it deserves another go around, as there seem to be even more social media "experts" out there. Please add your suggestion to the comments section or on Twitter with the hashtag #smbulb and let's see how many responses we can get.

Stop me if you've heard this.

Yesterday, I asked a question on Twitter - one that Joseph Jaffe rhetorically asked on his blog - I posed it as a joke and asked for responses.

The question was: How many social media experts does it take to change a lightbulb? My original answer on Joe's blog was: "309. One to come up with the idea, three to turn it into a strategy, five to execute it, and 300 to influence someone else to do it."

Naturally, responses to my question were far better than my lame punchline. Here are some examples of what I received:

@mncahill: 14,465 to twitter about the need for "LightBulbCamp" and one to hire a developer to change it.

@scottaparks: None, it never gets changed. They are too busy looking for a better bulb!

@cohnjoyne: before I tell you how many soc media experts it takes to screw in a light bulb, full disclosure, GE is a client of mine

@adam_rosenberg: at least 10. that way you have 1 to change it and at least 9 to tweet about it.

@scottstead: A: 500, Chris Brogan to ask the question, 495 to respond, 3 to organize #changealightbulbweek08, 1 to change the lightbulb

@ScottWitsToo: 3. One to change bulb. Two to discuss how we could change light bulbs better if only we could talk ad nauseum about the process

@LewisG: At least two, so an argument over the ethics of monetization can occur.

@jtobin: A team of 6 will happily consult, but nobody actually wants to execute the light bulb change for you. :-)

And this one from @jeffglasson: 4, Mitch Joel to give 6 steps to open the package, Brogan to write a 100 blog post series on the process, L. Feldman to score the puppet adaptation, and CC Chapman to actually screw the lightbulb in and get the job done!

My favorite was from @dmscott: What's your budget?

Got a retort humorous? Let me know by leaving a comment, or share the joke with some friends.

Photo credit: zetson (Flickr)

It's all about usability. 

Common sense dictates that the easier something is to accomplish, the more readily it will be passed along. What information do you ask your customers to submit? And of that, which is really necessary? Less is more.

Courtesy of Stuff That Happens.

I'm perfectly capable of wasting it myself.

According to a recent poll by Ruder Finn, 100% of the people on the Internet go online to pass the time. But what other activities do they say they primarily use it for?

For those of you interested in the social space, 92% want to connect with others, 76% wish to discuss, 72% aspire to be part of a community, and 56% desire to influence others, and 52% hope to activate support. Those are pretty strong numbers.

Especially when you compare them to the percentage of people who wish to manage finances, comparison shop or join a cause (all 30% or less). Hmm. I wonder if that means we'll have a generation of people who are too busy yapping with each other to pay attention to how they spend their money?

Unless they connect and discuss personal finances with others in an influential community. :-)

Chart source: eMarketer

Also cross-posted at: http://www.scottmonty.com/2009/10/recent-facebook-demographics.html

If you get a chance, check out the latest statistics from InsideFacebook.com. Please keep in mind that these are only number for the United States. But there are some things that stand out:

Looking at percentages, the highest growth rate is coming from the over-45 demographic:

While the absolute number of members is smaller in that group, the growth rate is fascinating to watch. I would imagine this will eventually slow, as we've seen with the younger demographic, until it normalizes. In anecdotal conversations, I'm finding that many people from this demographic are using Facebook to connect with high school and college friends (especially as we move into reunion time), stay in touch with children and grandchildren, and even begin to use it for some business networking purposes.

Another worthwhile graph from the post breaks down current U.S. users by age:

If you bundle up the groups, you'll find that the 35 and older crowd makes up 38% of Facebook's population here in the U.S. Pretty cool when you consider that Facebook started about five years ago as a college-based tool.

And finally, looking at gender, we find that - in every single segment - there are more female users than male users of Facebook:

While we know that overall women use social networks more than men, I wonder how many of us are using that knowledge to effectively feed our marketing and communications programs? Seems like there's a good opportunity there.

Do any of these data strike you differently? Can you draw any conclusions or make inferences that I've missed? Let me know.

Chart credit: InsideFacebook.com

One of the great features of the South by Southwest Interactive conference (that's SXSWi to you) is the plethora of panels and speakers there are to hear from. In many cases, you have to make hard choices because of an embarrassment of riches, so to speak.

If you've never gone to SXSW, I strongly recommend it, whether you're learning about social media or you're a representative for your company in the field. You'll meet plenty of other talented and like-minded individuals, you'll see new technology debuted (it's where Twitter first made a big splash), and you'll be able to hear some industry thought leaders. Not to mention you'll have a chance to keep Austin weird. If you can only attend one social media conference a year, make it this one. 

Each year, the organizers of SXSW open it up to us plebs to select which panels we'd most like to see. Never one to say no, I've been asked by five different individuals to be part of their panels. Here they are. Feel free to vote for (or against) as many as you like.

1. #youFAIL: Respond or Die in Social Media - featuring Planet Hollywood and Miramax Films, moderated by Kirk Skodis
2. Social Networking for Dealers: Cultivate Relationships First - moderated by Mary Butler from Razorfish
3. Virtual Experience vs. Advertising to Change Brand Perception - with ABC and Qik, moderated by Tom Martin
4. Building Social Strategies at Fortune 100 Companies - a who's-who of brands, from SAP to Microsoft, Nationwide Insurance to IBM and Dell and moderated by Jim Storer
5. Can You Tame the Twitter Beast? These Brands Think So - Jesse Engle, CEO of CoTweet moderates this panel that inclues Whole Foods, Sports Illustrated and Starbucks.

But be kind. I'd like a chance to see some panels as well. ;-) And while you're at it, take a look around the Interactive Panel Picker and select some others. There are plenty to choose from.

Photo credit: The Laughing Squid (Flickr)

Not quite, it would seem.

While we in business are seeing some advances from companies that are learning how to become more transparent, it's clear that the scientific community is stuck in the relative Dark Ages. Case in point: check out this guide on How To Publish a Scientific Comment in 1 2 3 Easy Steps (embedded below).

It would be funny if it weren't tragic.

I suppose it's a chance for those of us who understand and operate in the realm of online communications and social media to be thankful that we embrace instantaneous commenting and direct access to authors. That we co-create instead of hoard. That we can request assistance and get dozens of replies from people willing to collaborate for the sake of solving a problem or helping a colleague. That's precisely how open source software has allowed us to advance farther faster. iPhone app, anyone?

What if the scientific community were more collaborative (and I'm speaking about the publications here, not institutions themselves)? Or at the very least, collegial? What if journals and scientific publications held their authors to such high standards that they required more open disclosure of data, processes, and errors? Wouldn't that be something that we could all benefit from? The process below stands to illustrate the old thinking of self-promotion, fiefdoms, and jealously guarded secrets.

There must be a better way.

How to Publish a Scientific Comment in 1 2 3 Easy Steps