This guest post is written by Molli Megasko

Yes, it’s another Facebook post. But don’t roll your eyes yet (Howie!). I’m not going to talk about the user changes, I’m here to discuss the free ads Facebook is giving to small business.

This January, Facebook is planning to give away $50 in free advertising to 200,000 small businesses across the country to show them how the ad platform works in hopes of return sales and more users.  (That’s $10 million in free advertising!)

The social networking site is partnering with both the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) to help reach small businesses and educate them on social advertising.

According to the Wall Street Journal,

It is intended to educate small businesses on how to promote themselves on the social-networking site, like buying display ads targeted to specific markets, but also through cost-free measures to engage more with customers.

Beginning now, both organizations, and Facebook employees, will work with the local chapters around the country to start the education process and discuss best practices with small businesses. Currently, 9.2 million pages on Facebook are home to small businesses.

What does $50 get me?

Fifty dollars in advertising might not sound like a lot, but on the Facebook platform, a little can go a long way.  According to an updated note on Entrepreneur, businesses interested in receiving the $50 freebie will need to first take out an ad on Facebook starting in January. Then, they will give you $50 worth of credit for clicks.

*Note that the free advertising will be awarded to business owners on a first-come, first-served basis.

Targeting

Besides helping small business become more social and giving them the tools to grow, as we all know, the sweet spot of Facebook is advertising.  In fact, most of these changes we are seeing on our interface are to help advertisers become more targeted.

It’s important to know your audience and test out messages and change your images.  Just like Google Ads, once you build, they might not come.  It’s up to you to keep the ad fresh and know what works and what doesn’t work.

How to set up a Facebook ad

These ads work just like Google AdWords…you pay when people click. The best part about these ads is you know they will be in front of your desired audience.

First you choose the type of ad: A social ad or a Facebook ad.

We suggest small businesses stay with the Facebook ad until their fan base is large enough to move to a social ad (Facebook ads drive traffic to your page, and help increase your fan base). Within the Facebook ad you’ll have choices on targeting.  You can target by state, city, gender, age, keywords, workplace, and relationship. Then assign your daily limit of clicks and determine your budget of daily spend.

After your ad is created, our favorite part is the analytics and optimization.  Here you can see who viewed your ad, who clicked on your ad, and what actions they took  (Facebook formats it into a nice report for you).

This campaign is a great opportunity for small businesses. Not only can you get in front of new audiences and take your products and/or services national, but you can now get free online networking education.  For those small businesses not even on Facebook yet, you can see this as free marketing and free advertising, and in an economy like ours, free advertising is a great bonus.

Does your small business run ads on Facebook?  If so, what successes have you seen?

So yesterday, when Shelly Kramer tagged me on Facebook to read this article and then when Troy Claus sent it to me via email, I knew the title was going to make my blood boil, but I hadn’t read it yet.

And boy did my blood boil!

PR Agencies Are Ruining Facebook.

I love sweeping generalizations like this.

Look, I know the PR industry has a terrible perception, one we’re working daily to change. But to say

PR agencies are good at distributing messages, but they aren’t known for really producing anything

is a bunch of baloney.

The article is written by an advertising agency guy. That’s pretty apparent in his message. He begins his argument by stating that PR professionals were the first in the social media space and that fact alone has made it a very boring place.

The problem is that in social media, as in life, a conversation isn’t engaging unless there is something interesting to talk about. No one wants to listen to an endless, aimless stream of dialog about a brand or a company, which is what you get from a strategy that focuses on news, offers and the occasional contest. That’s where PR-led social strategies wind up because those are pretty much the only arrows in PR’s quiver.

I’m the first to admit there are plenty of PR professionals who are consulting companies or working inside businesses to use the social platforms solely as news filters…one more place to distribute your news releases. And I also talk a lot about the type OO (output only) person you avoid at cocktail receptions and networking events.

No one wants to hear someone talk about only themselves. No one.

The best way to add and engage fans, as the article’s author states, is to grow your existing customer base.

But it isn’t left just to the advertising guys, or the creative, to do this. And it’s not just about social. It’s about the tools that fit best into the overall strategy.

There are plenty of companies, and agencies, that are doing it wrong. We hear about them day in and day out. It’s getting exhausting.

We all agree the social tools are just that: Social.

So let’s talk about the companies that are being social. That are engaging. That are growing their fan bases and, through that, are driving sales (not just more followers or fans).

Have an example you can share or are you fond of a case study? Leave it in the comments!

As a side note: His article states, “Even the most articulate strategies, built by the best  social media gurus, tend to focus on developing a presence on Facebook or Twitter, rather than developing a brand’s purpose.” And then I noticed in his tweet stream that he’s going to be in Chicago next week and has asked David Armano to drinks. Better be careful. Armano is one of those “best social media gurus,” who works at one of the largest agencies in the world.

A few years back, Home Depot ran a television commercial showing one of their fully decked out 18-wheelers driving along a beautiful country road. A voice over talked about Home Depot’s commitment to communities they serve. As the camera panned out, we saw a crossroad ahead for the semi. It comes to a stop and then its right blinker goes on. As the camera continues to pan out, we see the entire horizon. To the right are clear skies, but to the left – armageddon. The sky is black and crackling with lighting. The clouds are swirling. The truck’s blinker then changes from right to left. The big rig turns and the logo fades up.

Let’s get something straight – television commercials are expensive. Especially ones so well-produced as this. So what’s the point? The point of this ad is to position brand in your mind as a benevolent corporate citizen and its goal is to get you to choose Home Depot over Lowe’s the next time you need lumber or lightbulbs. After all, Home Depot helps communities across America that have been devastated by natural disasters. Right? Do they really go out of their way to donate supplies to people who have been struck with bad weather? Probably. I have no idea. But the fact that you think they do is the most important thing.

Everything is advertising. It’s as simple as that. So whether we like it or not, every time a brand outwardly communicates that they’ve done something good for the community, it crosses over from public relations into advertising.

And it’s ok.

For example, the fact that McDonald’s mascot Ronald McDonald is the icon for the Ronald McDonald House is advertising. Before you claim that I’ve lost my ethical marbles, hear me out. Yes, we all know about the great things that the Ronald McDonald House does for kids and their families – but, if McDonald’s didn’t care whether they got credit, they’d run these facilities anonymously. Wouldn’t they?

With the advent of social media, it seems that corporate benevolence is more prominent than ever. From Pepsi Refresh to Kohl’s Cares‘, brands everywhere are trying to do well by doing good in this wonderful new age of real time community interaction. Look, I have no doubt that there are people who work at Kohl’s and Pepsi that are incredibly passionate about their respective charitable programs. And I’m sure they’re all really good programs. But in the end, it’s all advertising. Sure, brands care about the causes they support. Of course they do. But the fact that they use commercial mediums to advance these programs makes it advertising. If brands didn’t care about getting credit, they’d do what they do anonymously.

Everything’s advertising. And it’s ok. Let’s just call it what it is.

Jim Mitchem is an award winning copywriter and founder of one of the first virtual ad agencies on the planet in smash communications. He and his wife of 14 years moved to Charlotte in 2000, have two young daughters and a pack of animals. He’s a regular blogger for Advertising Age, the FearLess Cottage and The Good Men Project and is currently helping build Boxman Studios into a nationally recognized leader in mobile hospitality via green innovation. You can find him all the time at ObsessedwithConformity.com.

Guest post by Michael Shmarak, principal of Sidney Maxwell Public Relations.

OK, a quick show of hands – how many people got out of bed at some ungodly hour and stood in line for any number of Black Friday deals last month?

For those who raised hands, may I ask that you take that hand, form a cup with your other hand, and splash cold water on your faces? Sorry to rain on your parade, but you need a proverbial wake-up call. Your deal might have been good, but was it a deal at all?

I don’t know why the day after Thanksgiving is called Black Friday, anymore. According to retail data, shopper patterns, and any number of measurement tools, it is not the busiest shopping day of the year. Black Friday is a myth.

If this year was any indication, this year’s Black Friday should be called Gray Friday or Foggy Friday. There just was not a lot of buying activity. While store traffic might have been up in some parts of the country, registers weren’t ringing – which is what retailers really want to see.

Despite evidence that shows Black Friday isn’t what it was once cracked up to be, retailers still spend excessive amounts of money on marketing and advertising leading up to the day after Thanksgiving. And many PR teams continue to push the same old Black Friday buttons, with merchants opening early on Friday, or open on Thanksgiving, or pulling some other stunt that a journalist, blogger, or camera crew will cover.

The American public is used to seeing these “traditional” holiday stories, but where do we, as PR counselors, draw the line to say enough is enough? Why does the PR community propagate a myth of something we know isn’t true? Is it right – or ethical – to keep carrying on these activities?

Let’s be clear here – I am not seeking the Ebenezer Scrooge Award for Worst Holiday Spirit. What I am saying is we marketers should leverage merchants’ resources – along with our consumers’ intelligence – and establish a position that gives customers credit for what they know, what they want, and how they want it, as opposed to what retailers think customers want.

This is among the reasons why online and mobile shopping has become so prevalent. Technology has helped tailor messages and products in a way that best fits customers’ needs. The mass-produced one-size-fits-all marketing message doesn’t work anymore.

Still, those of us who have retail clients know 2011 holiday planning will be upon us soon. Let’s hope that in future years, we can help our clients reap greater returns from their holiday seasons – and we can all sleep in a little later the day after Thanksgiving.

Sidney Maxwell Public Relations Principal Michael Shmarak’s 5 ½-year-old daughter tells people, “Daddy gets paid to make other people look good.” She’s right, but there’s a lot more than that. The company strives to build deep relationships with its clients to create, distribute, and merchandise meaningful content.

New studies show there is scientific evidence on how to manipulate the brain’s electrical frequencies when watching TV and, specifically, commercials. This is called neuromarketing.

The idea behind neuromarketing is that advertisers tap into our subconscious, causing deep responses to certain stimuli. (Not far off from subliminal messaging, in my opinion.)

The article explains, “Neuromarketing’s raison d’être derives from the fact that the brain expends only 2 percent of its energy on conscious activity, with the rest devoted largely to unconscious processing. Thus, neuromarketers believe, traditional market research methods — such as consumer surveys and focus groups — are inherently inaccurate because the participants can never articulate the unconscious impressions that whet their appetites for certain products.”

Gini Dietrich wrote about the idea of neuromarketing around customer-focused organizations last month so I get that it’s happening. I mean, some of the world’s top brands are already involved in this kind of research (such as Google and Disney).

But personally, I don’t know how I feel about it. If my subconscious responds and wants me to go buy a certain type of shampoo, I must really want it then, right?  Therefore, I would be happy with my purchase?

The concept is not going to get us to go out and empty our bank accounts on buying a boat, but it may persuade you to vote one way instead of the other. If we allow neuromarketing into our advertising efforts, is there a way to draw the line when it comes to more serious things such as politics?  Or is it now up to us, as consumers, to truly educate ourselves? Will the idea of neuromarketing force us to be more intelligent or will it bring us to a zombie state-of-mind?

Is all fair in the neuromarketing war?

That’s why I was so surprised to read about Ruth, the Edelman “brand integration boutique” that combines every media channel (except media buying) and is named after the founder’s wife. I actually think the idea is great, if you can make it work without budget fights and “hogging” client work.

Before 9/11, I moved to Chicago to work for an ad agency because they wanted to integrate PR in order to offer full services. While the idea was benevolent, it didn’t work as well as we would have liked. There was A LOT of education of the advertising folks about PR and there was some education of the PR team about creative, direct, and media buying. There were fights about budgets and who deserved which piece of the pie. I can’t remember one instance that we actually did what was best for the client (not to say it didn’t happen – I just can’t recall). And then the country had a crisis and clients cut back and I left.

But that’s not the point. My point is Ruth is not a boutique anything. They have 70 employees and the backing of the largest independent PR firm in the world. That’s mid-sized. If we had 70 employees, no one would call us boutique, nor could we compete in that category.

Boutique, in my book, is a company that was started by one or two founders and was bootstrapped through growth. A boutique is a company that specializes in one thing, has a niche industry, and does it better than anyone else. A boutique is small (hence the name), but powerful in its own right. Ruth is none of those things.

I wish Ruth the best of luck. I really do. I hope, between this and their move to buy smaller firms, we all see an effect in our business’s growth. But, until Patrick McGuire (their head) lies awake in the middle of the night wondering how he’s going to make payroll or has to create process and procedure out of nothing or gets to define values and culture that don’t rely on a parent company, don’t call yourself boutique.

What do you think?

I hope you’re getting off work early today to enjoy your long weekend without working. We close the office at 1:00, which means Pete The Tapeworm and I will be leaving as soon as we accomplish three more things (not including this post) and attend to only three things for three days: Ride, eat, and sleep.

Following are the top five stories for week ending September 3, 2010.

5. Seven Ways to Measure Your Social Media ROI. One of my most favorite reporters, Steve Strauss, has a great post on Open Forum this week about measuring your social media efforts. If you look at the fourth tip, you’ll see an unnamed source who looks familiar.

4. Why Most Authors Should Not Emulate Seth Godin. Michael Hyatt wrote a great post on Seth Godin’s decision to move on from traditional publishing. What he says about this working for Seth and not for the rest of us is right…on…point.

3. The Difference Between Flacks and Spin Doctors. Last week, PRWeek (subscription required) wrote an editorial about the New York Times claiming the failures of big companies of late (BP, Toyota, and Goldman-Sachs) are due to its PR professionals. Todd Defren writes a great post, agreeing with PRWeek, and refuting the attitude of mainstream media against our industry.

2.We’ve Come a LONG Way In Advertising. Holy schnikey! Justin Brackett sent me this blog post and it is worth the read (don’t worry when you see the length – it’s mostly pictures). Les Kollegian, the CEO at San Diego-based Jacob Tyler, shows ads from the 50s and 60s. You will be astonished!

1. How to Unwind On Your Time Off. My favorite time management ninja, Craig Jarrow, provides tips for unwinding during your three day weekend so you’re refreshed and ready to conquer the world by Tuesday. I’m going to take ALL of his advice. What about you??

Have a happy holiday weekend!

As a recap, what you can expect to see every day:

* More content under communication, advertising, marketing, social media, SEO, and business growth

* Guest bloggers every day

* Expert Q&As

* Industry innovations

* Comment of the week

* Giveaways and contest

All of this will remain free, but be watching later this year for a subscription-based, behind-the-scenes Spin Sucks that will garner you access to more content, discussion groups, brainstorming, and access to experts.

Tell us what you think, what you’d like to see more (or less) of, if you know experts you’d like to see interviewed, if you’d like to guest blog, and if you’ve seen an industry innovation you’d like to see highlighted. This blog is evolving to help you do your jobs in the above six categories so tell us what you need from us.

And don’t forget to follow us on Twitter…we’re Spin Sucks!

The question lately has been if KFC’s new double decker sandwich will kill you. So will it? Of course not! But Nick, you’re likely saying, with the calories and fat content it is surely a cardiac arrest wrapped in paper…right? Nope!

Let me explain. It won’t kill you because only a small percentage of you will actually eat it. If you look between the lines, the point of launching the new sandwich was not to sell the sandwich itself.

Okay, okay, more explanation.

The point of the ad was to get you thinking about Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC), not to sell their new product. This is the true brilliance of affective marketing and advertising. The advertisement was a slight of hand magic trick . The proof is in the buttermilk.

By creating a sandwich compiled with two strips of fried chicken in between bacon and cheese, KFC was able to create enough SPIN and Internet buzz to get everyone talking about KFC without them really having to spend a whole lot of money. They didn’t have to because everyone did the work for them. We talked and talked about it. There are a lot of discussions regarding viral videos, well, this is viral advertising.

KFC simply made a product (The Double Down) that was so outrageous that we had to talk about it. We had no choice. We had to write about it because it was crazy. Effective advertising isn’t just about your ad budget, it is about how effective your results can be within that budget.

Sure, some people will buy the Double Down sandwich, but it made us all talk about KFC and right now I really want some regular fried chicken, mashed potatoes with gravy, and a biscuit. There is one about two miles from here. Hmmmmm.

Gini’s note: This goes back to last week’s discussion about the Nike/Tiger Woods ad. I know A LOT of people disagreed with me, but I still believe it was brilliant because it did just what Nick describes here…it got us talking and put Nike top-of-mind with consumers around the world. I’d love to know if Nike and KFC saw an increase in sales or if these are purely examples of great brand awareness.

Then, when I asked each of you what you’d like to read about in future blog posts, my friend John emailed me and asked, “Why is it that during tough economic times, most companies reduce marketing budgets? If marketing is of real value to a company and if marketing works for that company, wouldn’t you increase spending in tough times?”

This brings me to one of my favorite case studies: How Kellogg won the cereal wars of the Great Depression. Forbes, The New Yorker, and several other national media highlighted this story earlier this year, when it looked like the economy wasn’t likely to get better anytime soon. Following is an expert I refer to a lot when people ask me the same question John asked.

In the late nineteen-twenties, two companies—Kellogg and Post—dominated the market for packaged cereal. It was still a relatively new market: Ready-to-eat cereal had been around for decades, but Americans didn’t see it as a real alternative to oatmeal or cream of wheat until the twenties. So, when the Depression hit, no one knew what would happen to consumer demand. Post did the predictable thing: It reined in expenses and cut back on advertising. But Kellogg doubled its ad budget, moved aggressively into radio advertising, and heavily pushed its new cereal, Rice Krispies. (Snap, Crackle, and Pop first appeared in the 1930s.) By 1933, even as the economy cratered, Kellogg’s profits had risen almost 30 percent and it had become what it remains today: The industry’s dominant player.

With social media you can now heavily push your brand, your company, your service, or your product at half the cost of traditional methods. If you listen, build your communities, let your brand ambassadors spread the word, and provide value, your business will come out of the Great Recession as a dominant player, no matter your size.

So my question for you is: If you decrease your spending and no one knows you’re still in business, which creates a drop in revenue and profits, doesn’t it make sense to spend money and time on the new forms of marketing, advertising, and PR?