I like marketing; I don’t like selling. Various jobs have asked me to perform varying levels of both. One I enjoy; one makes me feel dirty.

First, let me define marketing and selling for you. Marketing seeks to offer solutions for the needs of a group of people. While marketing is targeted, it is targeted at those with this need rather than a specific person. Selling is done to a specific person.

Let’s say I make lunches. Everyone in my office is my market for lunch. I can put up posters marketing my lunch and some people will buy it. If I’m selling my lunch, I go up to a specific person, relying on them to buy it. If they don’t, I’ve wasted lots of time trying to convince them.  Think about the difference between seeing a car commercial and going to the car dealership. One is exciting, the other leaves you feeling dirty.

I recognize I am coming at marketing with an idealistic view. I believe that marketing is a worthwhile endeavor when handled in a needs based manner. This is why often the best products need no advertising, relying instead of word-of-mouth and brand trust. While that’s an extreme (it worked for Google), most companies and products can benefit from smart marketing rather than selling.

Now social media throws some new tools in the marketing arsenal while also complicating my definitions (is promoting something on Twitter marketing or selling?). I think the best way to approach any marketing is to focus on building your brand and then letting that trust (and the quality of your products) sell themselves). For instance, marketing on Twitter or on your blog should be more about providing a service to your readers, whether by providing information on a subject important to them or highlighting research in your field. Corporate blogs are excellent tools to show your company’s expertise and provide valuable information to users, ensuring readers will turn into future customers when you have a product they might want.

With the rise of Twitter and social networking news streams, many techies have been debating the value and livelihood of RSS. RSS, or Really Simple Syndication, is a common format used to share a constant stream of articles. Popularized by blogs, RSS can be imported by RSS readers (like Google Reader; here’s my little guide to them).

Back in May, TechCrunch already pronounced RSS dead which makes it more shocking that today, again, Sam Diaz reveals he’s not using RSS anymore. And so the conversation begins. Marshall Kirkpatrick defends RSS as another of his many research tools while Robert Scoble has moved on to Twitter and FriendFeed for news.

Let’s not confuse death with evolution. RSS has always been a tool, a tool still used by, shockingly Twitter, Facebook, and Friendfeed.  While some find basic RSS readers less valuable, this is because innovators have found ways to make finding information on the web more useful and more valuable.  New tools like Feedly and LazyFeed are making RSS more valuable, and in some cases, unrecognizable from its original state. The internet is, obviously, moving so quickly (just watch Twitter update), that it’s impossible to believe the same tools we use today will be the same tools used next year. Nothing disappears, it evolves into something better.

Of course, I still love my RSS Reader.

Software and website usability is not simply a matter of ease of use.  In my essay Three Factors of Usability: Understanding Ease of Use, I show how designers and developers can think more broadly about user interfaces and user experiences.

Read the essay here

As Hulu adds Disney to its video fold, some seem to be calling this a loss for YouTube. But YouTube and Hulu are very different video sites and hopefully will continue to evolve so as to co-exist peacefully for the benefit of all web video kind.

YouTube is the video site for the masses. Anyone can upload anything for any reason. It makes the site excellent for finding something, whatever that may be. And that makes it an excellent service for many people, from content creators trying to get noticed to guys filming their dog do funny things.  Hulu is the standard for premium, professional content from the legendary gatekeepers of entertainment.  Even as the two imitate each other, there is more than enough space on the World Wide Web for both.

Yes, YouTube is adding premium content and using much of Hulu’s interface. That’s good for everyone – Hulu has a great interface. But Hulu will never add the breadth and freedom of YouTube. Similarly, much of Hulu’s content providers refuse to give up the control a closed system provides (including, still bizarrely, blocking out most of the world from viewing the page).  Much of the apparent concern for YouTube comes from the higher ad rates Hulu gets for its premium content, but of course, this puts mistaken value on the content itself rather than the experience and the community.

Hulu is an excellent experience, when they aren’t blocking access, but it lacks the community that makes YouTube thrive.  While Google has yet to figure out how to monetize the community, there are still millions of loyal video makers and watchers devoting hours of their time to the making the site more enjoyable and valuable.  Already we’ve seen unique ways YouTube can be a tool for increasing wealth and marketing, from the recent Susan Boyle excitement (which increased sales of Les Miserable CDs) to the amazing Wario Land: Shake It video game ad (you must click the link to experience it fully). Plus, YouTube videos now allow links, allowing for some interesting new opportunities.

Obviously, I like YouTube, and I have some problems with Hulu. Basically, web video, like most aspects of the web, is not a zero-sum game. Just because Hulu gets something does not mean YouTube loses. YouTube finds its own market and its own success because of Hulu, not in spite of, and vice versa.  That’s called competition. And it’s a good thing.

One of the major appeals of social media marketing is the ease with which few can reach many at almost no cost. But for many small companies, this can be a fear rather than a blessing. Social media might expand your client base, but it does little to improve productivity to the same degree.  While having more business than you can handle is certainly better than not, it is possible overload can harm your business and brand. So how can you make sure social media is working only how you want?

Be honest about what you want

The focus of any social media campaign should increasing user value, but that doesn’t mean you ignore your own needs.  If you provide luxury services, be forward about it (and include some price examples so passersby know what they’re getting into).   If you only serve local clients, say so. Make sure you know what you want and base your marketing on that.

Niche versus mainstream

Don’t focus on Facebook if your demographics are only a tiny percent of the population.  Find niche social networks, forums, and blogs to network with that will help build your small but more valuable community.  You can always broaden your reach if you find your current strategy too limited, but it’s much harder to put the internet genie back its bandwidth bottle; even worse would be harming your brand because service suffers under the overload.

Control communication channels

I hate when a company only gives me a generic email (like blog@prodigeek.com, but I’m the only one, so you know I read it). But deciding the right communication method could be the difference between hours of sorting and a few moments of weeding.  If overloads of emails and phone calls really concern you, a contact form can help soften the pressure.  You can ask demographic questions to help sort through inquires. And best of all, contact forms will deter more casual inquirers.  A great benefit of Twitter or Facebook messaging is you can see many of the sender’s demographics, but turning those into your main communication channel is more effort than its worth.

Change your promotion methods / lower costs

Some of the highest costs related to marketing can be printing and mailing.  Moving more of your marketing online, like your catalog, can save tons in printing and add more value by being searchable and more interactive (don’t just turn it into a PDF).  Plus, email is free. Free. How’s that for cost-per-prospect?

Remember how I said social media won’t improve productivity? That might be technically true, but the internet can make you more efficient. Depending on your products and services, more and more can be done with technology, helping filter the amount of hands on time required, allowing you to increase your business without significant growth or sacrificing service.  From email to e-commerce platforms (like eBay or Amazon, the easiest) are great ways to sell products, for example.  Finding the best platforms and strategist, of course, means finding the best value for your users.

The mainstream media has been buzzing about this new and exciting web tool called Twitter.  Because Oprah now uses it.  Twitter, over the past few weeks/months, has been crossing the infamous chasm that separates early adopters with everyone else.  After Oprah promoted the three-year old company on her show, and sending out her first tweet, traffic spiked 43 percent.  Oprah, Ashton Kutcher, and CNN competed for the first million followers on Twitter.  Celebrities and brands have replaced the Twitter innovators like Robert Scoble and iJustine who helped evangelize the application and build the massive following it has now.

Social media bloggers are pondering what happens next for Twitter (beyond that nagging how are they going to make money question).  Will Oprah follow other people and engage in true two-conversations? Or will Twitter become just another broadcast marking tool.  I offer links to these questions and tackle one of my own: where do geeks go next?

I ask this because I consider Twitter a niche tool.  It has limited functionality and because of that is very hard to use effectively/creatively.  Twitter has obviously grown from being just another way to tell people what sandwich you’re eating – it’s a unique, rapid-fire communication platform thriving on texts and one-liners.  And this is, at least posed, to become popular with soccer moms and every brand with an email account (neither of which is bad, this is not a moral judgment).

To me, this says more about how tech savvy the mainstream is, than how useful Twitter is or how protective geeks are of their turf (we are).  Twitter is far more niche than Facebook or LinkedIn are, and if software like this can cross the chasm, how much more niche does niche get?

This is a credit to the rapid transition people are making into the digital world.  My mother is now asking me if she should join Facebook (no) and my 50+ year old friends want me to help set them up on Twitter. Definitions of what is part of the geek niche need to be redefined.  Geeks need to be a lot geekier to be geeks, it seems.

For web companies, this should be exciting news (though watching how Twitter traffic grows over the next weeks will affect my confidence in the following statements).  Twitter’s ability to appeal to a broad audience of users shows a society more willing to experiment with new tools, even if their uses are not so obvious.  I’m not saying this can be easily replicated – maybe Twitter is a fluke.  Instead, the next time you’re developing a product you fear might be too geeky, think about Oprah and your mother using Twitter.  Suddenly, your definition of geek, and the demographics for your product, are suddenly much, much wider.

Two Domino’s Pizza employees posted a video of themselves spitting on food, putting cheese up their noses,, and violating several health codes while preparing people’s food.  The video, posted on YouTube, became a sensation with more than one million views, spreading discussion to blogs and Twitter.  The New York Times today even profiled the threat social media plays for Domino’s and other companies.

I’ll still buy from Domino’s. Hopefully this is an example of two really bad actors and not reflective on the company. But this is a huge PR nightmare where even if Domino’s isn’t directly at fault (legally or morally, that we know of), it is still responsible to remedy this tragedy, making amends to the public for what it’s employees did.

Social media was used to damage Domino’s brand. Domino’s can use social media to repair the damage.

First, admit fault. With a press conference posted to YouTube and news outlets. Admit employees were not properly supervised, incentivized, and educated, and then outline how all these things will be fixed for the future.  Also publically compliment the rest of the Domino’s sales staff. We know Domino’s hiring is not the most rigorous, so oversight is important.

To repair its brand, Domino’s would best be served by opening up it’s serving practices to the world – through YouTube. I don’t mean hidden cameras showing you don’t trust your employees (that will only invite more trouble). Instead, show how much you value your employees by encouraging each store to make it’s own YouTube video about their favorite pizza creation.  So every Domino’s outlet will have the chance to create a special pizza, which customers can buy, and see online how the staff came up with and made that pizza.  This shows Domino’s trusts its employees to serve its customers’ best interests, and it gives something special to customers in the form of unique and special pizzas, customized for their location.  Domino’s can collect all these videos onto a YouTube channel and even make a U.S. map with links to the videos of locations closest to you.

The lesson to learn – social media can be a dangerous weapon in the wrong hands. But in the right hands, social media can be used for just as much good.  Embracing open communication builds and rebuilds brands.

For many people, social media barely extends beyond Facebook events and a few messages. For most, it’s hard to understand why people need to be constantly connected.  But social media and networking is a valuable tool for every person in every industry, from executive to homemaker to student to chef. How you use social media relies on your style, interests, and goals.  Everyone can find benefits in social media with just a little effort.

Make new connections / Revive old ones

Social networking gets lambasted for valuing acquaintances or people you don’t really know, but in reality, these networks are vast databases of everyone you’ve met. And who knows when you’ll need them again.  On a job search, you can search your network to see who works at places you’d like to work. LinkedIn makes this even better by telling you who in your network knows someone else who works at a specific company, and helps make the introduction for you.

Party planning

For convenience, having all your friends listed in one place can make it easier to plan parties, arrange reunions, or just find someone to hang out with this weekend.  Facebook has a built-in party planner making it a point-and-click affair to invite everyone (or someone some) you know. And with a master list, it’s harder to forget someone.

Discover new interests

Last.FM and Pandora Radio to make it easier to discover new music. Digg and StumpleUpon help you find exciting news or fun articles.  Netflix and Amazon help you find movies and books (and anything else) you might like. None of these are an exact science, but simply help wade through the massive sea of the internet to find things you might like. And each one has a social media component to help you see what other people have bought or liked or better, what your friends have bought or liked.  Tuning into these spaces can improve your own media and purchasing experience.

Promote yourself

Everyone Google searches people, from potential employers to co-workers to dates. This means you want to control your online brand. When someone searches for you, it’s better they find information you’re willing to share, like on your Facebook page or a personal blog.  You don’t have to detail every part of your life (once something’s on the internet, it’s no longer private). While it sounds cold, it’s reality – you are your own brand, just like Coke or McDonalds, and you want to control how the world views you.

Find out if that boy/girl you like is single

And the true purpose of an social network – social stalking.  Just kidding…

Any web 2.0 business model must, by law, include five or more buzz words from user-generated content to API to social networking to get venture funding.  Companies are desperately trying to use social media like Facebook, Second Life, and even the iPhone to manufacture marketing and attention. The result is start-ups and established companies focusing resources because that’s where the hype is rather than where the smart business is.

Hype is the keyword here.  An already popular company like Facebook or Apple launch something new and obviously there’s hype.  But this hype is not contagious.  A former boss of mine said the reason we were developing an iPhone app before we had a mobile site was to “Get some attention when the app store launches.”

For start-ups limited in resources, jumping on the internet bandwagon is more often a waste and at best a distraction.  It’s best to focus on building your own features and worth to make sure once people find you, they want to stay.  Building applications for other platforms fragments your audience and time - what you build on Facebook needs to be rebuilt for the iPhone and rebuilt for Netvibes.

Second Life has become a prime example of hype overblowing marketing potential.  Last year, just as another company I worked for wanted to build a Second Life presence, Wired wrote about the marketing waste the virtual world had become. Coca-Cola, Reebok, IBM, Sears, and dozens more build huge islands with style and zazz, paying high-profile Second Life consultants and expecting the viral marketing to take off.  But no one visited.  The hype came from companies trying out Second Life, but no one ever posting resulting.  Since Second Life accounts are free, the 4 million users it boasts is misleading.  Only 1 million had logged on in the past 30 days and only a third of that in the past week.  Only 100,000 of those live in the U.S.  Those who do sign on spend most of their time in sex shops or gambling, not looking at marketing campaigns.

Facebook is likely to follow. Facebook itself is having trouble monetizing its massive user base, how do third parties expect to do better?  iPhone applications can be sold for money, which makes them less viral.  And working with any closed platform like Facebook or Apple puts the platform in control of your future.  Facebook suddenly blocked some of its most popular applications, Top Friends, Super Wall, and Social Me, with little notice and challenges to get back in the platforms good graces.

The opposite strategy of releasing your own API is more worth the time (if it makes sense for your product and not just a buzz word for investors) but has its own risks.  Twitter’s success and constant downtime are both due to their API.  Without the API, much of the sites usefulness wouldn’t have happened leading so many to join.  But because of the API’s popularity, the site can barely keep basic features operational.

So this is a lot of don’t.  The dos, unfortunately, are the hardest because it needs to be case-by-case.  Because there are so many platforms and APIs and doodads to try and sync up with, it’s impossible to say everyone should do this.  The key is when deciding how you want your product to integrate with the greater web world, think about your own strength and goals rather than bullet list features.  Everyone is pushing the same bullet lists.  You’ll stand out more by not.

I updated my Twitter status which, through TwitterSync, updated my Facebook status. Facebook, in turn, updated my FriendFeed with that status, but Twitter already updated FriendFeed. Suddenly I realized data portability is closer than we think.

A few weeks ago I wrote about the Info Wars brewing between the social networks on their desire to control our information. MySpace, Facebook, and Google launched their own social networking networking service, allowing users and 3rd-parties to access information inside each walled garden. Facebook quickly blocked Google’s service claiming privacy issues, an attempt to protect its users.

Facebook forgot its API already allows an immense amount of access to user information. Many leading social sites offer APIs, or application programming interfaces, that allow other sites to integrate each other’s systems. Facebook, for all the criticism of its walled garden mentality, is able to import data from many sites and external sites, like FriendFeed, can have data exported. I can’t move all my friends from one site to another…yet. But smaller social networks like Twitter are almost completely functional without ever going to Twitter.com.

The dream is control our content. Now we can just manipulate it. It’s a start. And competition, from new and old and in between social networks will force more open standards that make every site more valuable to users.