The patriarchs of the old media have spoken. Again. They’ve consulted their crystal balls – the same brilliant orbs that were unable to reveal their own accelerating decline and potential demise – and determined that Twitter, one of the most prominent social media platforms, is supine on its deathbed, pennies on its eyes, waiting to go gentle into that good night.

Brandweek published today an article entitled Is Twitter the Next Second Life? that laid out the desultory details of Twitter’s autopsy even before the playful blue bird’s corpse assumed room temperature.

The title of the article, comparing Twitter to an entirely dissimilar virtual gaming platform, established the unrelenting bias of the author who made no attempt to investigate the reasons behind Twitter’s explosive growth over the past two years, but was content simply to comment on its apparent failure to maintain an unsustainable growth rate. The fact that Twitter’s growth rate has receded to only 6.2 million additional users per month from a recent high of 7.8 million is apparently cause for alarm among the Brandweek cubicle farm apparatchiks that would sacrifice infants on live webcasts to attain a hundredth of Twitter’s monthly gain in their own subscriber base.

So, how to prove that Twitter’s demise is imminent? Call on an assortment of disgruntled marketing execs and Social Media directors willing to denigrate Twitter’s reach and influence, naturally. With an enormous population of clueless and envious advertising and PR flacks champing at the bit to diminish Twitter’s accumulated luster, Brandweek had no problem finding jilted Twitter suitors eager to vent their bilious spleens at Twitter’s expense.

In addition to a couple of prominent marketing executives who dismissed Twitter’s relevance to their marketing efforts, the article quoted Sienna Farris, the director of social media strategy for a global ad agency, Strawberry Frog, who demonstrated her social media bona fides by claiming that there are just a few areas where Twitter makes sense for marketers. Those areas: hawking deals, announcing promotions and handling customer relations. Not a word about listening. Not a syllable about engagement. Not a hint about relationship building or customer support or market research. In sum, not a single mention of how Twitter can be employed as a component of a digital marketing strategy with the exception of self-serving pitches – the one thing certain to alienate SM participants.

A quick examination of Strawberry Frog’s social media activity reveals their precise level of social media cluelessness. Sure, they have a Twitter id and a Facebook Fan Page, but their participation is entirely one-sided. An examination of their Facebook Fan Page reveals daily posts, but only a single comment. No conversation, no engagement, and no attempts to converse with their fans. Ditto their Twitter stream. Virtually no conversation, but plenty of self-promotion. Could Brandweek possibly have found a social media director with less of a clue how to deploy Twitter as a strategic tool?

Despite acknowledging that companies including Ford, SomeEcards, Dell, Comcast and BestBuy have achieved notable successes by exploiting their Twitter engagements, the author still concludes that Twitter is destined for the ash-heap of history. After all, Ford may have achieved enormous success, with Scott Monty attracting over 37,000 followers and Ford launching their latest Focus model exclusively through social media, but Chevrolet apparently failed to replicate Monty’s success, so #TwitterFail.

Maybe it’s just me, but shouldn’t a journalist ask some simple questions and attempt to explain why two nearly identical companies in the same industry would have such disparate social media results before declaring the demise of one of social media’s most notable participants? After all, if Scott Monty at Ford has enormous success and measurable ROI in his SM efforts, why is the SM platform derided instead of Chevrolet’s social media director? What’s Scott Monty doing that Adam Denison at Chevrolet is missing? I’m gonna guess that it has something to do with the content of Chevrolet’s messages, not the Twitter platform itself. But, rather than explore the differences in approach that each company elected to pursue in their SM engagements, the author simply declares the ineptitude of the Twitter platform in attracting followers. When in doubt, blame the platform.

There are dozens of social media directors, consultants and even self-proclaimed gurus who could have provided countless testimonials and case studies of companies in virtually every industry that have leveraged their Twitter participation into measurable ROI, but their stories weren’t enough to counter Brandweek’s anticipatory joy tolling Twitter’s death knell.

It’s time to counter a growing sentiment among social media types – including some nationally recognized practitioners who really should know better  - that trying to justify your company’s decision to pursue a social media strategy based on ROI is somehow foolish.

Now, these same high priests of social media don’t ever suggest a better alternative or method to determine whether or not your company should pursue a social media strategy, they just insist that you’ve got to do social media because it’s just so darn important, and besides your competitors are.

If their argument sounds like your teenager’s argument insisting that you’ve just got to let him stay out til 2am because everyone else is doing it, well, you’re right.

However, unlike gullible parents, the executives who make investment decisions aren’t easily duped, they don’t jump on every trendy b-school bandwagon and they’re not scared of your newfangled technology. They want more than breathless claims. They want proof.

Twitter is that thing Ashton Kutcher and Oprah play with. Facebook is the place where their teenagers waste their entire evenings. And your preoccupation with these platforms doesn’t convey cutting edge marketing savvy as much as it does pointless obsession.

If you want corporate buy-in and investment, you’ve got to demonstrate how your social media strategy will generate positive returns for the company. In real dollars, with real timelines.

The ROI opponents claim that there’s simply no way to really measure ROI. After all, they claim, How can you put a dollar value on a blog post, a blog comment, or a single tweet? As if that level of granularity is the measure that anyone is looking for.

Or they simply attempt to redefine a financial metric that has been commonly defined and routinely accepted for decades.

Reading just a few recent posts by legacy ROI opponents, I’ve seen ROI redefined as:

• Return on Impact
• Return on Impressions
• Return on Importance
• Return on Influence

And, my personal favorite for its absurd complexity and impenetrable formula: ROI should really be referred to as Return on Conversation whose formula is:

(B • I) (m+s • r)/d] / [O/(b + t + e)]

Brand Equity times the Intent of Communication times (Message plus Suitability times Reach) divided by Sustainability OVER Outcomes divided by the Cost times (the Budget plus Time to Produce plus Experience)

I believe the result is actually measured in Schrute Bucks.

The reality is that ROI is much simpler than that. You only need to know two numbers: how much you gained from your investment, and the total cost of the investment itself. That’s it.

ROI = (Gain – Cost) / Cost

If you spent $1000 and saw an increase in sales of $1500, then your ROI was:

ROI = (1500-1000)/1000 = 50%

I think I know where the disconnect is. Social media engagement typically generates an action that is non-financial in nature. You collect Twitter followers, generate retweets, get comments on your blog, add new Facebook fans, attract YouTube viewers or generate click-throughs to your website.

However, These aren’t ROI. How do I know? Because my banker won’t take Twitter followers in lieu of a check. Clear enough for you?

I don’t want to diminish the importance of engagement with your clients and your prospects. I’m a huge adherent of social media and I recognize its transformative potential, but only if it’s used strategically, with specific objectives that you can track and measure.

ROI doesn’t become ROI until it does one of two things: increases revenue or reduces costs. Those are financial impacts that are real, measurable and put a grin on your CEO’s face.

Determining ROI isn’t a laughing stock metric in the corporate world. Calculating potential ROI demands that you create a strategic plan, consider alternatives and project likely actions and returns from your program. It compels you to define precisely your plan’s objectives, put them down on paper and support them when challenged.

Simply saying that we need a social media program because our competitor has a social media program is absurd. What if their program is drains their  marketing budget without any noticeable effect? Do you want to copy that?

If you want funding, you need to justify your program with more than intemperate claims that we’ve just gotta do something. What’s your goal? To increase revenue or decrease costs? How will you do it? Who will be involved? How much time is necessary to invest? What technology platforms will you support? How will your program fit into your current operational structure? What do you want your conversational partners to do? How will your success be tracked and measured?

If you don’t know the answers, you don’t deserve the funding. Social media marketing is no different from any other marketing, it just uses new channels and has interactivity built-in. If you can’t tell me how you intend to leverage the medium and generate a positive return you can always try again next quarter after you learn.

Marketing has historically been a godsend for lousy companies. With an effective marketing team, even the surliest, most incompetent and inattentive companies could create an illusion of excellence, caring and success.

They could write a powerful and inspirational mission statement professing their devotion to essential core values and tout their commitment to clients and community.

In a word, they could lie.

They were able to craft their own deceit because there was no simple, inexpensive and effective way for any single customer to counter their message. What’s a wronged airline passenger to do when the airline bumps you from a flight, loses your luggage or confines you for hours on a frozen tarmac? Before social media, you simply had to take it. Grudgingly, angrily and frustratingly you simply had no ability to counter the beatific corporate message.

Not anymore.

If there’s any aspect of your business that sucks, you can expect these deficiencies to be magnified, not eliminated, through the effective deployment of social media.

While many large companies believe that they can continue to manage and control their message through social media channels, they’re in for a rude awakening. The explosion of social media platforms and their rapid embrace as a tool of retribution by an increasingly savvy and knowledgeable public means that they control your message, not you.

Want proof? United Airlines – with annual revenues of $17 billion and a massive marketing budget – could not control their corporate message when confronted by a single implacable passenger with a broken guitar. When Dave Carroll, a Canadian musician, could not get satisfaction from United for their baggage handlers breaking his guitar he wrote a clever song, shot a video and posted United Breaks Guitars to YouTube where it has accumulated over seven million views and nearly 25,000 negative comments from similarly disgruntled passengers.

While Dave Carroll’s effort received international attention, there are thousands of similar stories emerging every day on blogs, Twitter feeds and Facebook pages. Legitimately unhappy customers who are simply fed up with poor service, lousy products and an uncaring or inattentive company and who decide to let everyone know exactly how rotten you are.

Social media has permanently shifted the balance of power from deep pocketed corporations to passionate and sophisticated social media participants. Got flaws? You’d better fix them.

Although Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn and the other major social media platforms have enabled job seekers to reach an enormous network of people during their job search, these same tools – improperly used – also have the potential to derail and destroy your efforts if you don’t carefully manage your online persona.

The explosive growth of Facebook and its use for both personal and professional networking has revealed some cautionary tales from individuals who didn’t anticipate the damaging potential of too-familiar, vulgar or offensive profile content.

The destructive potential of an artless profile was revealed last week in a post written by Cleveland blogger clevelandsaplum. Her post detailed a candidate search for an addition to their public relations staff. After the first round of interviews, one candidate stood out as the clear favorite. But when the staff did a quick Google search and checked out his public Facebook profile, he lost any chance of being invited back.

Visible to anyone with access to Facebook, and shielded from no one was this stunning paragraph:

About Me:
I am awesome. I run sh**. I had relations with your girlfriend, and yes I got it on tape. I scoff at those less fortunate than me (read: everyone else). I tend to laugh at the handicapped as well as foreigners. I am a firm believer that women are without a doubt the weaker sex. I know more than you. I am a ridiculously huge deal. I’m utterly gorgeous, you (most likely as a result of terrible genes or an unfortunate run-in with the business-end of a shovel) are not. I make fun of ugly people, because they are ugly and they deserve it. My social life is clearly something that you will never experience because you are ugly, unpopular, or a severe combination of the two. I throw sh** onto my neighbor’s porch because I am better than them and they can’t do sh** about it. My friends are also better than you and they will let you know it. I break other people’s stuff. I do whatever I want without any regard for the repercussions. I intentionally ruin the environment via littering, not recycling, and other harmful action. I am an ass****.

Although it’s likely that this individual was attempting to be sarcastic and humorous, his description was highly offensive to those who viewed it within the company and it raised flags concerning his judgment and discretion. And in a heated competition with a dozen other qualified applicants, this was reason enough to eliminate him from consideration.

Now, go check out your own social media profiles and see if you’ve written anything that could offend or concern a potential hiring manager.

Then read these instructions to sanitize and protect your online reputation. Customize your privacy settings to restrict access to your personal information. Segregate all of your contacts into different lists, each with differing levels of access to your updates and photos. At a minimum, you should have a Personal list for your closest friends and a Professional list that allows you to connect with professional contacts but doesn’t grant access to all the intimate details of your life. Prevent photos tagged with your name from appearing in anyone else’s feed unless you specifically approve it. And restrict your personal updates solely to your close, personal friends.

Take control of your personal brand and online reputation before you become a cautionary tale yourself.

David Meerman Scott garnered attention this week with a 3 minute rant deploring the fixation of corporate types who insist on justifying social media marketing expenditures with Business 1.0 anachronisms like ROI (that’s Return on Investment folks).

He attracted dozens of comments from supportive readers who share his distaste for the MBA scourges who dominate corporate America and insist on facts, data and analysis to support requests for capital investment. After all, we all know that social media is good, strong relationships are beneficial, and any effort we can make to become closer to our clients should be pursued. Unless you do it wrong.

You see, there’s a burr under this social media saddle. If you do it wrong, you can irritate your prospects, alienate your clients and permanently damage your personal and company reputation.

When your CEO asks for an ROI of your social media marketing program, what he is asking for is a strategic plan and analysis of likely outcomes. Without the plan, you and your marketing/social media staff may simply leap into the social media void and flail around aimlessly, without clear objectives or measurable goals. Sure, you’ll be able to brag about the number of Twitter followers you have and the percentage of retweets you generate, but what have you really accomplished?

I admire many of the marketing activities that David has pursued over the past several years. And I agree that his approach – creating interesting, entertaining and highly useful content and then giving it away – is successful for many people and companies. But not all.

It obviously works for David. How do we know? Because he tracks the ROI of his activities. He knows that when he posts a controversial blog entry that gets commented upon across the web he generates more traffic, increases his search engine visibility, receives more comments, and sells more books. Activity = increased revenue. ROI.

The straw man in his argument is his assumption that establishing ROI requires that one track the value of every tweet, blog post, Facebook entry or YouTube submission and then generate a value of that singular activity. No one is asking that anyone do all that to prove the effectiveness of a social media program. No company can get that granular in their analysis.

However, we can demand that marketing departments have a strategy in place and mechanisms established to measure the success of that strategy. If you are going to produce and disseminate free content, you need to know what type of content you need to produce. Videos? Podcasts? Slideshows? Webinars? White papers? Interviews? And where will they be available? On your corporate website? On your blog? On your Facebook Fan Page? On all of them? Then you need to track, analyze and adapt. If the downloads of your white papers overwhelm the views of your online videos, then get busy producing more white papers. But how would you know any of this if you didn’t prepare to measure the effectiveness of your efforts?

And then what are your next steps? How do you extend the relationship with the individual who downloaded your white paper? Do you ask them to become a Twitter follower so you can engage them online? Do you ask that they join your Facebook Fan Page so they can gather even more useful content? And to what end? At some point, your actions/their reactions/the non-financial impact must convert into a financial impact or what’s the point? (hat tip to Olivier Blanchard at http://thebrandbuilder.wordpress.com/)

If you can’t convince your CEO that you have a plan to increase revenues or reduce your costs, then you don’t deserve the investment. Don’t blame their fear of your social media prowess or resistance to trying something new. Their understanding of business fundamentals hasn’t changed. Prove the value of your ideas. Something David’s Harvard Business School audience should understand, even if David doesn’t.

Someone should create a mission statement for any company attempting to create a mission statement. Something like this:

We will critically examine our company to determine why we do what we do. What inspires us. What drives us. What excites us. Then we’ll write a brief statement that accurately, and singularly, describes our company. That can fit on a t-shirt. It will not contain the words: best, leading, biggest, profit, diversity, growth or exceed expectations.

Now, if you really, really feel that a mission statement is essential to understanding and guiding your business, you have the rules. My question is: Why do so many companies break these rules and create irredeemably awful, platitudinous and ultimately pointless mission statements?

My ire was inspired by an article I read on the Smart Business Online website this week detailing the efforts of Staffmark CEO Frederick Kohnke to rebrand his national staffing company around a unified vision, mission and values. The project took nine months and resulted in one of the most useless, generic mission statements I’ve ever read.

Really. That’s not just hyperbole. Although the resulting mission statement wasn’t included in the article (wtf?) I found it on the Staffmark website. Their mission:

To always strive to exceed the expectations of our employees, business customers, and external stakeholders.

How’s that for exciting? Really gets your juices flowing, doesn’t it? Strive to exceed expectations. What’s the matter, think outside the box was taken?

If you spend nine months creating a mission statement, odds are that it will be created not by the company founder or CEO, but by a committee tasked with the job of creating an inclusive mission statement. One that will take into account all their stakeholders, will be legally benign, generally inoffensive and ultimately uninspiring. One that will be guaranteed to include no distinctive or compelling voice, no descriptive or detailed verbs and certainly nothing that will differentiate it from any other staffing company. Staffmark succeeded spectacularly on all these counts.

What’s so terribly disappointing is that genuine, heartfelt mission statements can be inspiring and unique. Consider Ben & Jerry’s mission statement:

To make, distribute & sell the finest quality all natural ice cream & euphoric concoctions with a continued commitment to incorporating wholesome, natural ingredients and promoting business practices that respect the Earth and the Environment.

There’s not another ice cream manufacturer that could claim that mission statement. Euphoric concoctions. How wonderful is that phrase?  The precise wording matters because it captures the essence of Ben & Jerry’s. It could not be transferred to Briar’s website, or Edy’s or Haagen Dazs.

Or consider Coca-Cola’s mission to refresh the world. It captures their company spirit in a way that PepsiCo’s mission to be the world’s premier consumer products company focused on convenient foods and beverages doesn’t.

Being the premier, leading, biggest, most profitable company isn’t a mission, it’s an objective. It’s not inspiring to anyone outside of the company boardroom. Not one of your employees will get out of bed tomorrow and say to themselves “How am I going to make Company X bigger today?”  But I’ll bet there are Disney employees who get up and ask themselves “How can I make someone happy today?” And I’m certain that there are Apple employees who can’t wait to get to work to do something insanely great.

But apparently Staffmark is content with their employees exceeding expectations. Whose expectations? We don’t know. How are the expectations measured? We’re not sure. How will anyone know when they’ve exceeded expectations? They won’t. But, gosh darn it, it’s better to exceed expectations than fail to meet them, right? Then that’s the goal.

And I’ll bet that if I were to call 20 of Staffmark’s employees today, not more than one or two would be able to recount their company’s mundane mission statement. Anyone want to take me up on that?

One of the most frequent and irritating faults of marketers is their belief that if a little personalized service is good, then an overwhelming amount of personalized service must be better. No. It’s not.

Let me freely acknowledge right up front that I love Chipotle and think their iPhone app is one of the most thoughtfully designed and easy to use online ordering apps. In fact, if I intend to eat at Chipotle – even if I’m in my car outside – I’ll order on my iPhone because it remembers my last order and I can complete the entire ordering process with a few taps on the screen.

Chipotle has eliminated pain from my life. The pain of waiting in a snaking line in the middle of the lunch rush, having to yell your order over the din of the crowded restaurant, and having to juggle food and money when finally arriving at the register. The entire exercise to obtain my food is time consuming and generally annoying.

Recognizing this, Chipotle released their iPhone app, allowing customers to order from their phone (or online) and proceed directly to the register to pick up their pre-paid lunch. Annoyance eliminated.

Or so I thought.

Then the phone calls started. Every time I ordered from my iPhone, I’d receive a phone call about an hour later asking if my food was ok. Every order, another phone call. Another intrusion. Another unwanted and uninvited interruption of my afternoon. With no apparent way to get them to stop.

After the first call, I was understanding. After the sixth I was aggravated. After the tenth I was pissed.

I elected to order from my iPhone precisely because I did not want to call and speak with their employees. I elected convenience and privacy. I never elected to chat with the Chipotle staff. I never opted in.

Chipotle never asked me if I wanted a phone call from their customer service staff. I never gave them permission to contact me on my personal phone. They simply assumed that their definition of good customer service would be met with gratitude and understanding. They were wrong.

So, to test their ability to deliver real, personalized customer service I sent them an email. I complained about their intrusive phone calls and asked to be removed from whatever contact list is generated after an iPhone order.

And Chipotle came through. They responded the same day, apologized, acknowledged that they should have incorporated some type of opt-in button or check box, and assured me that I wouldn’t receive any more calls. And then they followed through. After placing two more orders last week I anxiously awaited a follow-up phone call that, to their credit, never arrived.

So, what’s the lesson for your business? The definition of excellent client service is defined by your customer, not by you. And your service delivery processes have to be flexible enough to adapt to differing definitions. I have no doubt that Chipotle still calls many of their iPhone ordering customers, and that’s fine with me if it’s fine with those customers. They just needed to know that my definition of outstanding service never involves calling my mobile phone. I just want tasty tacos with extra salsa, hold the phone call.

Exactly one year ago today I wrote that you could put a fork in Motorola. They were done.

At the time, Motorola was reeling from a string of lackluster phone releases that failed to generate any consumer excitement, their product designs were uninspiring and their engineering and development staffs were incapable of developing innovative products for the half-dozen different mobile operating platforms that they supported.

They’d lost their design mojo and appeared unable to recapture any Wow! factor.

The New York Times reported today that their new CEO, Sanjay Jha, has bet the company’s future on Motorola’s newest iPhone combatant, the Droid. And the early buzz indicates that the Droid may very well save the company.

How did Jha design a company saving product strategy that you can apply to your business?

1. design a better experience. The single biggest complaint about the iPhone is its lack of a real keyboard. The Droid offers a thin keyboard that slides out from the phone, thereby resolving the iPhone’s most glaring weakness and instantly appealing to thousands of users who love the iPhone concept but could not live with its touchscreen keyboard. Instant win.
2. personalize the experience. There are now more than 100,000 reasons why the iPhone is so popular with its users: applications. Every user has personalized their iPhone with the apps that complement their lives. Every user’s iPhone is unique to them, and by adopting Google’s Android mobile platform, the Droid has access to a growing library of Android apps that will allow Droid users to create a uniquely personal device that can’t be replicated on any other platform.
3. create a sensory experience. Although Motorola was known as a design innovator, they haven’t introduced a compelling product design for several years. The Droid changes that. Jha understood that the visual aesthetic and the tactile sensation of holding and using the Droid was crucial. Motorola smoothed some hard edges and covered the back of the phone with a tactilely pleasing rubberized coating. In addition, they’ve incorporated a larger, 16:9 hi-res display that delivers a compelling visual experience. Overall, it’s a sensorial delight.
4. create a WOW! experience. the Droid is being released with a new navigation system from Google that has amazed the early reviewers. It’s the kind of killer app that can generate huge volumes of sales on its own since it replaces the need for in-car navigation systems. It’s visually exciting, it’s instantly understandable and it delivers exceptional value. They captured Wow!

Apple has retained its position at the top of the smartphone heap for over two years. Challengers have been easily dismissed. Until now. And if Motorola can continue to focus on designing and delivering exceptional user experiences, they may very well challenge Apple’s dominance.

Any iPhone users thinking of making the switch and betting on the Droid?

The Palm Pre was one of the most highly anticipated smartphone launches this year. They primed the media for months with photos and detailed specs of the unit, ensuring reams of coverage for their iPhone-killer.

On June 6th, Palm released the phone to collections of eager fans who could have all assembled in the lobby of their local Sprint store without disturbing the regular patrons just there to complain about their monthly bill.

Without an established collection of Pre fanboys committed to camp out for hours in front of every Sprint store, the groundswell of Pre passion seemed rather demure and underwhelming.

No matter. Palm announced that they realized record sales nearing 500,000 units during their first weekend, dampened only by Apple’s release of their own new 3GS iPhone, which sold over one million units in its first weekend.

Now that the smartphone dust has settled, it appears that Palm’s Pre will never become the iPhone killer they had hoped. Total sales for this year will finally settle between 1 and 1.5 million units, compared to Apple’s total iPhone installed base of over 40 million. Not much of a comparison really.

So, what went wrong? Why didn’t the technical tour de force that is the Pre stumble so badly? In a word: marketing. Or, to be more precise, lousy marketing.

Palm ran a series of ads introducing the Pre that have been universally panned, frequently eliciting adjectives including creepy, eerie and confusing. Great adjectives if you’re Rob Zombie, introducing Halloween 2. Not so great descriptions for a cutting edge smartphone trying to gain traction in a market dominated by Apple and RIM’s Blackberry.

Take a look for yourself at YouTube. Creepy, right? And nowhere in any of the ads does Palm provide a single reason why you need a Pre. What does it do? How is it better? How will it improve my personal/professional/sex life?

Come on, people, these are the fundamentals.

When Apple released the iPhone, their simple visuals set against a plain white backdrop focused all the viewer’s attention on the phone and its remarkable touchscreen. They showed precisely what you could do with the touch of a finger. They conveyed a Wow! factor that generated interest and desire bordering on lust. In contrast, the Pre ad suggests that if I have their phone, I may encounter nothing but green lights on my way to work. Really? That’s your pitch?

The truly disappointing factor is that the Pre is a remarkably innovative phone. It’s the only touchscreen device capable of genuine multi-taking. But Palm never tells me why I need to multitask. What can I do with a Pre that I can’t do with my iPhone or Blackberry? Besides making concentric circles of orange-clad Asian men dance in unison?

Don’t make the same mistake Palm made. Understand what makes your product/service essential and then clearly communicate your distinct value. Sure it’s fundamental, but even the big guys forget to focus on the blocking and tackling sometimes. Like Palm.

I was invited yesterday to attend a couple of high-level presentations at an enormous Cleveland-based health care concern that intends to pursue web-based fundraising initiatives.

Two groups were invited to compete for a seven figure campaign to test the efficacy and potential of web-based fundraising and each sent high-powered teams to deliver their extraordinarily mediocre messages through their numbingly ineffective PowerPoint presentations.

At the end of the day, after our private recap of both presentations, we were all in agreement that neither company did themselves any favors with their presentations, although each had the potential to blow the other out of the water with an exemplary, creative, memorable and distinctive presentation.

What went wrong? Both were wedded to the PowerPoint presentation template that insists on delivering text based information in a visual environment. With bullets. Endless bullets. Each one read to us. Just in case we had become suddenly stricken illiterate.

So, let’s review. Each presenter brings a laptop to connect with a high-resolution LCD projector capable of displaying brilliant video, and each decides to present…. (wait for it)… TEXT. Brilliant.

Here’s the rub. Both competitors had amazing, compelling and memorable stories to tell. Huge, nationally recognized clients with exciting success stories. Creative campaigns that generated lasting results. And neither elected to tell any of these stories.

However, we were graced with annoyingly derivative methodology diagrams, dense process flow charts and unnecessary recitations of dry stats and figures that contributed nothing to our attempt to determine one thing: are you the guys we want to execute this campaign?

Let’s revisit the irony here… two firms send teams to demonstrate how wonderfully creative and capable they are and both center their presentations not around story, emotion, community, engagement or connections (words not even mentioned for the first 90 minutes), but around bullet points. I’m sold.

I know it’s been said before, but let’s say it again:

1. tell a story. first. foremost. If you don’t know how, read Beyond Bullet Points and learn. Before your next presentation. I’ll remember a story. I won’t remember that 4.8% of direct mail recipients will elect to give their contact information if presented with a free premium option. Or is that 8.4%? Or 6.9%? Oh hell, I forgot.
2. use visuals. See the slide deck embedded above. Simple graphics aren’t so simple, but they are devastatingly effective. And they support your story. (see how this all ties together?)
3. edit ruthlessly. Don’t use eight words when five will do. Or two. This is a presentation, not a shared group reading session. If you pick the right visual, you won’t need a single word on the slide.
4. learn your presentation. I believe that most presenters fill their slides with bullet points as a crutch. They’re afraid that they’ll forget to mention something, so they make sure that every single talking point is included in their slides. The solution: practice. Learn what you want to say with each visual. Use the slide notes feature if you need to have a visual reminder visible only to you. Just get rid of the lists of text that detract from you and your story.

Want to separate yourself from your competitors? Learn how to tell a visually compelling story. Your clients will be eternally grateful that they never have to sit through another miserable PowerPoint bullet point recitation and you’ll be their hero. Win win.