Which bookmarking sites do you use? The choice is getting ever wider and there appear to be new sites appearing almost on a weekly basis. The big news story from 2012 was probably Pinterest but others are creeping up on the inside. Twitter still emerges as everyone's favourite bookmarking site, combining lively social networking with the ability to group users and save favourite tweets. This post over on Brian Boyer's blog has a few old favourites and a few new surprises... The pic is from the Marcofolio.net site, which also has a few good things to say about social bookmarking. So...which ones do you use?

Micro-management is the scourge of productivity and staff development in all industries or business, either private or public sector. Period. Micro-managers can take a forward looking organisation with good visionary leadership at the top and keen willing staff looking to improve and progress, and turn it and them into static and unmotivated organisation drifting rudderless on an increasingly stormy business ocean.
And its a common phenomenon, this micro-management. It usually indicates a lack of confidence, an unwillingness to lead change for fear of risk-taking, insecurity and therefore a lack of trust in the team doing the grunt work. The problem can be that many leaders and senior managers fail to spot the micro-manager in their middle-management teams, and the micro-manager certainly tries to hide their methodology, and therefore, if a job (of sorts) is appearing to be being done, than the trait can be hard to spot. Its almost as if the weak manager can't afford to let the boss see this weakness any more than he or she can allow the team room to manoeuvre or freedom in their allotted tasks.

In this day and age, organisational hierarchies are getting flatter and flatter, with decision-making devolved from traditional top-down levels of organisation to a more project-based responsibility. Of course, there’s a delicious irony with this and this is younger career-oriented ambitious folk, who are stoking the pressure for hierarchical change do themselves expect recognition and promotion as a reward for the work they do. Extrapolate this out over a forty year working career and at a promotion every two or three years, that's between sixteen and twenty steps ‘up’ the corporate ladder. In an ever flattening organisational hierarchy, those steps may be rapidly disappearing, leaving many senior mangers and HR directors with a bit of a headache !

Devolving responsibility to project management level, as I’ve already said, is the way which many businesses are going, however, this approach is not without its problems. Does this result in a lack of overall strategic leadership? will there be competing demands for senior ,management time from project managers eager to be noticed ? and will this looser structure really appeal to everyone, most of whom have been brought up in a command/control structure? Maybe not. For as the reins of perceived power loosen up, very often the response is confusion, uncertainty, lowering levels of morale, and even grumblings of leadership ‘vacuum’. The signs might be quite overt, such as arguing and power struggles, or less overt such as lower productivity and increased sickness absence. Usually a lack of leadership is blamed for these organisational woes, but maybe its not a lack of, but the wrong style of leadership which is to blame in such cases.Maybe, just maybe, its leadership being practiced in the ‘old style’ and grafted on to a new set of operating circumstances rather than adapted for times of change, that is the real culprit in these situations. To take this a stage further, perhaps middle managers are clinging to their traditional styles of management in order to cause change to fail and so preserve the status quo. And so we see that in these cases and many others like them, its the leadership ‘skills’ being practiced which are actually stifling change.

As a leader, its your responsibility to develop your staff, strengthening your teams. The most important job of a leader is to create more leaders, not gather followers. So how can you do this effectively if your view of your teams' strengths and weaknesses and overall performance is blocked by micro-management ?

Here are the four steps to beat the micro-manager, build effective teams of well managed people and develop the leadership capacity of your organisation..

1. Aim to build up channels of communication. Paulo Freire, the education theorist once wrote that without dialogue there can be no communication, and that without communication, there can be no education. So dialogue within your organisation is essential. Encourage this dialogue by having an 'open door' policy. Let everyone know that they can come and see you for a talk, or just pass the time of day with a brief chat. That they can bring their concerns to you, and that you will listen. And talk to everyone without passing either comment or judgement. Active listening is the key to getting folk to open up to you, but its important not to make decisions and communicate them to people in ways which will subvert the business hierarchy and undermine your middle managers.

2. Have the courage to address the problem. If you don't deal with it firmly and decisively, the culture of micro-management will become ingrained in your organisational hierarchy as an acceptable way to do business. So invest in your middle managers. Mentor them and support them by modelling good business and management practice. Allow them time to change and room for trial and error. They will fail as much as they succeed at first, but given the time, spacer and encouragement, they will change. Let them no that its ok to fail, because we all learn from failure, and more importantly, behaviours change because of failure.
Identify potential problems and issues by listening to them talk about their teams. Listen out especially for third person pronouns in these conversations because this is a common way that a micro-manager separates themselves from their team's performance or lack of achievement.

3. Develop all your people. Despite the challenges posed by micro-management, do not let it affect your staff development programmes. High quality training need not be expensive. Use your contacts and professional learning networks to support you in this. They nay be able to help by offering workshops and training, and of course, you will be able to reciprocate. Remember, the role of a leader is to create more leaders, so be on the look out for potential in people. The early bird catches the worm, so they say. So be on your guard and try to spot the micro-manager before the behaviour becomes an issue, and starts to affect productivity, and above all, and even though you are busy with a thousand and one things to do, avoid the temptation to think that if you can't see managers with problems, that there is no problem. Good quality training is the key to avoiding this pitfall. Provide the resources and be creative with training and development budgets as there are many cheap ways of motivating and developing staff and managers. Give your managers time, resources, confidence and encouragement.

4. Have confidence in your people. Expect them to overcome their weaknesses. After all, people micro-manage because they fear the consequences of failure due to giving their staff freedom, so give your middle managers time to change and room for trial and error (see point 2 above). Staff are not free if they don't understand their role in the business, have an interest in it's success, and just what is necessary to achieve that success, so convince your managers that their teams can do the job and put courage into them to give their people the freedom to get on with their work without the dead hand of micro-management constantly on their shoulders. Your managers will know that you expect them to create a positive working environment and atmosphere for their teams, and the business will be all the better for that.

If you persevere and show persistence, most managers can be encouraged out of their micro-management ways. However, where you encounter the odd one who can't, decisive and firm action is required to remove the problem before it spreads and becomes institutionalised. Where you allow a culture of micro-management to become embedded in an organisation, only those who need to be micro-managed will remain there. The rest will be off to pastures new very quickly; to an organisation that allows its employees to flourish and succeed.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

The attraction of social media for many is the low-cost entry. A few tweets and Facebook posts cost nothing but time. But to garner any sort of return on this time, your social media output needs to be refined and engaging. Its not enough to simply post messages and broadcast your news and products. You need to engage in conversations because its difficult to build up a presence on line without this. Of course, creating a buzz on line demands a commitment to investing the effort involved in cultivating and building a following. So, would you invest time and money in this? Spending hard-won profit on a social media specialist might be expensive but the return might also be well worth the investment. Because you can't do this half-heartedly, it needs a certain level of input, and this means you've got to put out to get in. Here's a great little blog post on social media marketing spending...

A great blog post from Robert Clay about The power of LinkedIn

I've certainly found it useful, particularly in South Africa. Any thoughts?


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

More than 100 million less searches carried out on search engines in the UK fromJuly-August. 40 million less searches carried out August-September. So what's happening? the rise and rise of social media, that's what. Because the increasing trend for those in the know is to find the answers and information they're looking for on the social web. Although Google remains the king of all search methods, its lead is gradually being eroded by the likes of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.
So what is the real significance of this shift? Those in the know say its this; Social media is becoming more and more important in driving traffic to websites that search engine optimisation, and it might be that the days of search engine optimisation (SEO) are slipping into the past. Is it worth businesses spending hard earned cash on SEO when there might not be any return on this investment?

Probably not. Indeed, it all points towards money spent on social media being a far better bet.

There's always a lot of talk about social media and the bottom line. Just how do you effectively measure the ROI when looking at your social media costs. Although its often said that social media engagement is a necessity rather than a luxury these days, its still important to be able to justify those Pounds, Rands and Dollars spent on social media.

So how do you do it? is social media still rather more art than science? or can we nail it down with the metrics? So-called 'soft' indicators such as engagement relate to the numbers of followers on Twitter, or 'likes' on Facebook are cited by many as indicators of success. But only twelve percent of users and sixteen percent of social media consultants can cite bottom line improvement. These figures are perhaps subjective but maybe that's why art trumps science, at least at the moment. Or perhaps it always will as fickle social media consumers hop from channel to channel depending upon the latest fashion. We've seen the fall from grace of former behemoths like MySpace and BeBo, as well as start-ups which fail to set the world on fire, like the recently closed Scoville...

Have a look at this article for a closer look at the stats.
And if you want some more advice on social media measurement, there's a good article here from Brass Tack Thinking.

(image from ivisitorguide.blogspot.com )

Ok, so you've taken the plunge and entered the world of social media. Your business is on-line and active across the social web and you are starting to get some interest. A few likes on Facebook, some followers on Twitter and you're ready to take the next step and recruit a social media expert to boost your profile and hopefully bring in new business.

So, what do you look for in a social media consultant? and how will you maximise your rate of return (ROI on what might be a substantial investment. After all, its notoriously difficult to quantify success or failure with social media compared to traditional profit and loss accounting.

I came across a great article recently which hits the nail on the head on the subject of social media consultants. I think it sums up the qualities of the ideal social media expert your business needs. Have a look here and see if you agree....

( image used under creative commons licence. Original from theadaptivemarketer.com )

Are you losing business to your competitors because you are not visible enough?

Do you get the mix right for maximising sales?

It used to be said that a potential customer needed seven reinforcements before they'd even remember your product, and make a purchase when needed. Now, with the digital revolution firmly in place, its over twenty. Yes, twenty! Your potential customers will need to have seen this amount of 'reinforcers' before they remember your particular brand when considering where to purchase.
People do more research than ever nowadays. Each customer will have started on line and looked at at least eight sources before making a decision. If you're not visible, then you're going to miss out on potential business. This article from marketing expert Barry Moltz shows you some great tips for getting noticed by potential customers.

Any surprises? I bet there are at least three you've not thought of in this article. Hat tip to SmartBrief for the lead. Image courtesy of Mashable.com

A great article here for existing and aspiring leaders everywhere...



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

LinkedIn has more than doubled in size (OVER 160 million Members) in the past year with one user added every single second! Its something which has been overshadowed a little bit by the rise of Facebook and Twiter, but, as these facts below show, you ignore it at your peril!

* Executives from ALL Fortune 500 Companies are registered on LinkedIn!
45% of LinkedIn’s members are considered the major decision makers for their companies. (Twitter and Facebook account for only 24-29%!)

*LinkedIn holds the record for the Highest Average Household Income over all other Social Networking sites at over $109,000 per member!

*There are no distractions! On LinkedIn, you’ll only find high-caliber individuals with a business mindset, focused on networking for results!

*With the IPO of LinkedIn, it is now valued at over 10 Billion Dollars and interest and awareness are at an all time high.

So, have a look at this video, from expert coach Lewis Howes, and think about how LinkedIn might help your networking and your business to grow....

Will Facebook lead to the eventual demise of the website? So thinks Stephen Haines of the Social Media behemoth which just keeps getting bigger and mote diverse . As some companies already get more monthly likes on Facebook than hits on their websites, might companies in the future no longer bother having their own website? After all, likes are qualified by several demographic markers, Facebook e-commerce sites can be built into pages, and developer apps let businesses create custom made interactive programs.

So does Facebook look like finishing off the company website? or for that matter, the education VLE, because Facebook for Education could be the answer to a lot of funding and innovation problems. Do we need to spend millions developing intranets like GlowPlus when platforms like this are or will be available.

We do a lot of business with clients who like Facebook. Its simple to use, has a wide reach, and is effective in pulling in supporters and fans to your particular cause. Its a great way for the third sector in particular to get their voice heard in an increasingly crowded conversation...
Have a look at this Slide Share presentation...it ticks all our boxes. Will it tick yours? contact us for further information if you think we can help your organisation to join the conversation on Facebook and all other Social Media...

In this day and age, organisational hierarchies are getting flatter and flatter, with decision-making devolved from traditional top-down levels of organisation to a more project-based responsibility. Of course, there’s a delicious irony with this and this is younger career-oriented ambitious folk, who are stoking the pressure for hierarchical change, do themselves expect recognition and promotion as a reward for the work they do. Extrapolate this out over a forty year working career and at a promotion every two or three years, that's between sixteen and twenty steps ‘up’ the corporate ladder. In an ever flattening organisational hierarchy, those steps may be rapidly disappearing, leaving many senior mangers and HR directors with a bit of a headache !

Devolving responsibility to project management level is the way which many businesses are going, however, this approach is not without its problems. Does this result in a lack of overall strategic leadership? will there be competing demands for senior management time from project managers eager to be noticed ? and will this looser structure really appeal to everyone, most of whom have been brought up in a command/control structure?

Maybe not. For as the reins of perceived power loosen up, very often the response is confusion, uncertainty, lowering levels of morale, and even grumblings of leadership ‘vacuum’. The signs might be quite overt, such as arguing and power struggles, or less overt such as lower productivity and increased sickness absence. Usually a lack of leadership is blamed for these organisational 'blockages' but maybe its not a lack of, but the wrong style of leadership which is to blame in such cases. Maybe, just maybe, it's leadership being practiced in the ‘old style’ and grafted on to a new set of operating circumstances rather than adapted for times of change, that causing blockages in these situations. To take this a stage further, perhaps leaders are clinging to their traditional styles of management and failing to make progress in order to cause change to fail and so preserve the status quo. So we see that in these cases and many others like them, it's the leadership ‘skills’ being practiced which are actually the root cause of this business constellation.

So the challenge for organisations is to break through their apathy and give change a chance. After all, managers may have perfectly rational reasons for resisting change and not wanting to take risks.

Real permanent change might be said to go through three stages:

1) Anticipation-the exciting stage of in change management when we are sure the benefits will be worthwhile and we plan for the change process

2) Regression- this is when things tend to get worse before they improve

3) Consolidation- when the benefits of change transform into normal everyday practice.

The biggest challenge lies with the regression phase, and our fear is that this regression will become permanent. However we must be prepared for a regressive stage, even though our greatest fear is that if the change fails this regressive stage will become permanent, and we end up with the worst of both worlds, inefficient practice and resentment at change which has failed to live up to expectations. So we tend to look for change models that skip this regressive stage, failing perhaps to realise that change is an evolutionary process and evolution, by it's very name, evolves through stages of change, one after the other. Its just not possible to skip stages.
A sporting analogy might be a snooker player trying to change his cue style or a golfer attempting to change his swing. Most of the time, you get worse before you improve. Two steps forward sometimes costs an initial step backwards but it's an essential part of most change processes, despite what the self-appointed 'change agents' might insist.

Therefore, any successful change management process must concentrate not so much on the desired outcome, but on this middle regressive stage in order to 'unblock' the pathway to a successful outcome. Rather like the Dylan William 'Inside the black box' educational research, it's the processing stage which is vital to a successful outcome- what's between inputs and outputs. And any leader managing change must be a successful 'unblocker' clearing the path to eventual success by removing the unwilling and immovable blockages so as to let change make progress and just as importantly, be successful in taking colleagues with them along this same road - a 'laxative' management style almost. But it's perhaps the only way to overcome the procrastination which kills many operational change processes, even when that change is sorely needed.

Now, transpose this scenario onto education, and specifically, schools. With the flattening of the career structure, might a similar leadership approach be necessary ?

Having worked both in the business world as a senior manager, and in Education, l have had over twenty five years to observe leaders and leadership skills in many different settings. One thing I've learned over these years is that the two don't necessarily go together. In business, I've seen many with leadership skills denied the chance to exercise these skills by lack of promotion prospects or micro-management, and Education tends to be dominated by leaders with a dearth of actual leadership skills.

But if you look closely at some of the great leaders, both from history and more contemporary times, you tend to notice a few common characteristics displayed by these folks. Four of them, in fact.

Firstly, they all appear to have the ability to recognise potential. They can skills-spot in people who probably won't recognise this potential in themselves. This is an invaluable attribute for mentoring people, as if they actually come to believe they can do things, then they tend not to waste time worrying about their abilities and just get on and focus on their own personal development. In fact, they develop the courage to try without fear of failure. They learn and develop, often by trial and error, but learning all the while, day by day. This attribute of good leaders is vital in the development of good teams. And good leaders develop more leaders rather than just gathering followers.

Secondly, skilled leaders define success for their teams. They have very clear expectations of what is required to achieve success and ensure that they communicate this to their people effectively, so that everyone knows just what they are expected to deliver, and when. This is a very time consuming and challenging thing to do, and most leaders do very little of this, preferring to micro-manage instead. This leads to disempowerment and demoralisation in the workforce because it denies one of our most basic human needs, self expression (at least according to the psychologist Maslow). Lets face facts, the job of a leader is not to do his teams work, it is to provide the support, guidance, and resources, and this then leads to empowerment which in turn leads to folk figuring things out for themselves. Good leaders trust their people to get on with the job, having set the parameters and given clear guidelines and appropriate training and support.

Thirdly, Good leaders develop an understanding of how their people operate on an emotional level, but also on physical, mental and spiritual ones. Leaders will get the most out of each person in their teams if they understand just what each needs to operate at full capacity. This allows the team as a whole to perform at peak levels of productivity for longer. It leads to sustainability. So value your people, feed their spirituality by engaging them in your leadership mission, ensure they are well and supported and you will achieve so much more as a unit, rather than just a collection of individuals.

Finally, and probably the least visible characteristic in most leaders, is the ability to recognise their own fallibility. They don't feel the need to be right all the time because they have developed the self confidence and emotional well-being to be able to recognise their own shortcomings and not let these devalue themselves as individuals and leaders. If this translates into treatment of everyone in the team, all will feel valued, despite their own weaknesses and shortcomings. They won't waste valuable time and energy worrying, defending, even asserting their value to the organisation and in turn will spend more time actually adding value to it instead.

Are these qualities visible in the leaders you work with ? what is the take-home message ? well, it's this...
If you value your employees or your team, or your staff, then they will add value to your business. Its all about the nurture you see, but with a business slant. Because to get best value from your people, you have to be valuable to them.

Everybody complains about meetings don’t they? A culture of meetings has overtaken possibly every industry, business organization and public sector operation, creeping in slowly over the last fifty years or so, gradually cementing itself into organizational culture the world over. I suppose you have to ask, how has this happened, and why? After all, most people hate meetings. They lower productivity, waste valuable time, veer off-message often morphing into rambling social get-togethers which vary rarely achieve their agend-ered purposes. Many are just simply unnecessary, and the whole caboodle leads to meeting failure and even worse, meeting fatigue. This last one is, of course, the little cousin of innovation overload.

One, of course, leads to the other. I mean, how could we possibly introduce all those new innovations, policies and procedures without a raft of preparation, brainstorming, planning, execution and progress review meetings. You start to see my point. Everybody just hates meetings. Or do they? The answer to this question is, unsurprisingly perhaps, no. There are many folk who actually thrive in the meetings culture. Most managers actually love meetings. They use them for many reasons, mostly relating to control freakery, in my view.

-Firstly, most meetings are a social occasion. So all the off-message chit-chat actually fulfils a human social need. People like to gossip and bitch about other people. Many managers need the sense of vindication which comes from a good bitch with underlings and colleagues about other (perhaps competing) managers. It makes them feel they are a part of a special close-knit community from which others are excluded. This is all a real meeting killer, distracting, time-consuming, and very difficult to plan out of any agenda. After all, its human nature to talk and any environment that encourages talk is at risk of veering off message, yes?

-Secondly, There’s a status thing involved in meetings. This really links in with the sense of community created (see first point above) and the logic goes something like this. If you’re at the meeting, then you are more important than those not invited. The importance is reinforced by the number of meetings you attend. If you spend all day every day in meetings, you must be like, very important indeed? The number of committees, focus and planning groups you sit on is a direct measure of your importance to your particular organization. You have a seat at the top-table; are in the decision-making loop; are one of the decision makers. Even being at meetings and asking or being asked to answer questions on a one-off basis increases your visibility with the big bosses and directors above you in the hierarchy and therefore, enhances your own status.

Thirdly, meetings keep everyone better informed about what’s going on around the organization. Although quite probably unconnected with the meeting, this informal communication does have the effect of keeping everyone in the loop. These informal sources of information supplement formal communication and such back-channels play an important role in assisting people to avoid the political and personal faux-pas which are always such an ever-present danger in any place of work.

Now most companies and organisations are all too aware of the problem with meetings culture and try to do an awful lot to minimize the risks. There are rafts of company policy documents, piles of white folders detailing procedure, and endless training courses for managers on how to plan, agenda and maintain focus in meetings. This whole meeting education shooting match has reached saturation point in fact. Endless hours of training and thought go into making policy and procedure for meetings effective and put into common use. And yet, of all the operating procedures, it’s those relating to meetings which are most commonly ignored, or at least, brushed under the corporate carpet. All because, whatever their outward protestations, most managers either on an overtly conscious, or even unconscious level, like meetings just too much to let them fall by the wayside. They are almost psychological drivers which usually trump all the common sense and planning so carefully translated into meetings conduct guidance. Indeed, if we have such things as meetings audits, most organisations would fail miserably. If we had to devise a way of ruthlessly enforcing the rules for meetings and cut back, a whole new set of problems would be created...

- People would get meeting withdrawal syndrome. The shakes would start. Managers would be seen desperately hunting for little bowls of mints, bottled water, and even sit with other folk at their desks for that authentic meeting feeling.

- Some folk would lose the ability to make coffee of walk to the drinks machine. Their heads would be seen above the cubicle partitions, necks stretched up like frantic Meercats, searching the office horizon for the woman and her trolley of stainless steel coffee and tea dispensers.

- Without an agenda, many would have a problem actually knowing what to do and how to do it. They’d all be waiting for someone to start them off.

-Most would have to deal with suppressed feelings either of unrequited bitchiness about their colleagues or seniors or enhanced feelings of unimportance, denied their therapeutic outlets of meetings. In fact, ‘meetings-envy’ would become a very sore point for many, looking on in rage-inducing jealousy at those lucky chosen few who still got the call to the inner sanctum, the corporate meeting room with its infinitely higher quality fresh ground coffee, Malvern Spring Water, and posh biscuits.

How does any organization deal with this modern-day phenomenon then? Well, managers at all levels need to be very aware of the need for absolute compliance with meeting discipline, both in scheduling and conduct during any meeting called. A fit for purpose audit sheet for each meeting should be checked both before and after any meeting. Attendance limited to those with direct involvement. Others can be notified by memo. Video-conference is possible for most organizations nowadays. The software is cheap or free to use. Communication via message boards or internal ‘Twitter-like’ social media (Yammer was a useful tool for this). Regularly review the business meeting schedule; even restrict the use of meeting or conference rooms. Ban nice coffee and posh biscuits even. Make sure everyone always brings something to a meeting which garners appreciation from all for its contribution; for being one step ahead of the room. For contributing previously thought-out ideas based on the agenda and the hoped for outcome of that particular meeting. Anticipate the outcome and be one step ahead of it. All this will save time in both initial and follow-up/progress meetings.

But just complaining and then doing nothing is not enough. Because although we know they’re bad, we just keep on coming back for more. Like moths to a flame, the attraction and draw of a meeting is just too good to miss out on

You know how it goes...you've set up on your own, survived the first year and struggled through half of the second. Small accounts, but nothing big. And then all of a sudden, that first big deal lands in your lap, the saviour of your fledgling business. How did it happen? Tempting though it is to think so, this big deal was not, repeat not down to luck. It was all down to your absolute focus on business strategy. Because you planned how you'd go about landing those big ones, didn't you? Like this, maybe..?

1. You made a list of all potential clients. Prospecting for gold. You researched these prospects, finding out as much as possible about them. How much their advertising spend is, how much they spend on the products or services you offer.

2. Think creatively, out of the box. Everyone and their auntie is going after the obvious, so try to identify the others who might be interested in doing business with you. Learn their corporate-speak, their jargon. Try to think like they do.

3. Look professional. Big businesses want to have confidence that you can deliver and this means looking the part. Your website needs to be all-singing-all-dancing, not something you bought off the peg on a CD-Rom. Make sure your business cards are high quality and your company stationary is top-notch.

4. Network. Try to use your contacts to meet folks who work for your prospects. Learn about the key people in the business and which buttons to press to engage with them. Introductions can go a long way towards cementing the deal, sometimes swinging the deal by overcoming slight uncertainty of unknowns.

5. Listen well. Believe it or not, the big companies want to do business with smaller ones. This is because they value the speed and flexibility which allow small firms to get things done more efficiently and timeously. So listen out for the opportunities and jump right in. Learn how to provide what they are looking for. They won't give you a second chance so listen well and give them what they want.

Of course, it doesn't end with the handshake. You have to feed and nurture your Tiger. And hunt down other Tigers because management changes may mean you're pitching from scratch all over again. Don't put all your eggs in one basket as they say and diversify your client list as broadly as possible.

Is this how you anded your big Tiger ? no, well, maybe its worth thinking about if you want to lead and grow your business through its formative years....

With nearly one billion users, Facebook is a social media phenomenon which cannot be ignored by anyone seriously trying to market their particular brand or business. But just creating a Facebook page and thinking its going to do all the work for you would be a huge mistake! Successful Facebook marketing involves a lot more....advertising, refreshing content, finding new customers and clients, the list goes on because there's so much more to effective Facebooking than meets the casual eye. This is where an expert is an indispensable addition to every business and brand. And Facebook itself is mindful of this, as Sarah Smith, director of operations and small business unit manager at the social media behemoth explains...

Read a summary of what she has to say here
Now, whilst many of her ideas for small businesses involve costs, you'd perhaps expect this. After all, their brief is to maximise income for Facebook marketing and advertising tools. However, there are some good points in this interview. Page insights are a valuable tool to use in sharpening up your strategy, and Facebook classroom has some great webinars which explain their more intricate fixes in easy to understand detail.

Have a look, and have a think. Facebook is the third biggest search engine in use today. You can't afford not to be a presence there.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad