I have always had trouble understanding what the fuss is about concerning Facebook’s “likes” for brands. Those brands spend an inordinate amount of time on their social media, but our research has never suggested that it creates any kind of preference. It just demonstrates preference brands already have.

Now comes a study by Syncapse that rates each like as being worth $174.17 to your brand. The social intelligence company bases that number on research that shows those who like a brand spend more money on that brand and are more likely to continue buying that brand.

Duh.

That’s all fine and dandy, but it speaks to a larger problem for brands that’s far too common. They are still speaking to those who have already chosen them. The art of stealing share is in stealing the customers of your competition. I don’t see where liking a brand on Facebook does that.

To be fair, being on Facebook is something you have to do as a brand. But don’t confuse it with the reasons why target audiences choose.

Worth $174.17? Maybe. To grow, however, it must attract new money, not just count the money it has already has.

You’ve seen it before — countless times probably — the banal phrases: “Visit us on Facebook” or “Friend us on Twitter.”

These days, marketing should run hand-in-hand with a strong social media presence. But having a profile on Facebook or sending tweets on Twitter are table stakes, not (as we see over and over again) the closing exclamation point for a television commercial or a radio spot.

Consider this: The most vital brands – Apple, Amazon and Nike – never advertise their existence on Facebook. It’s a given that Amazon has a group page on Facebook and that Nike is sending out frequent tweets on Twitter. As consumers in an evolving marketplace, we should assume this and companies should act accordingly.

Brian Stelter, a media reporter for The New York Times, who was highlighted in Page One, a documentary on the changing landscape of the newspaper industry, provided interesting insight on this topic.

“Twitter makes us faster and smarter,” Stelter said in a recent interview. “It doesn’t change my day, but it probably changes how aware I am of the news. It makes me respond to the news faster.”

While this blog isn’t about focusing on the positive facets of Twitter and Facebook, it is about reminding companies that using these social media tools isn’t “big news.” Stelter reaffirms the necessity of these social media avenues for businesses.

Having a social media presence is an intangible for businesses, but sharing that you have it is not a means to steal market share.

Just as banks offer free checking, or fast food restaurants offer quick service, every vital company should have a Facebook and Twitter identity.

A word to the wise: Please stop wasting your time telling us you have these options.

There are many fascinating things about consumer behavior and their effect on brand preference. One of the most interesting is how quickly tides can shift and how the apple of a consumer’s eye quickly becomes rotten.

The most recent example of this is Facebook. Sure, there are still legions of loyal followers, but, since the first whiff of negativity from its IPO, we’ve seen a constant barrage about its long-term viability, usership on the decline, lawsuits, negative press, you name it. The same happened with Netflix when it attempted Qwikster. Almost overnight, the angry mobs grabbed their pitchforks, where just a few days earlier they would have sung Netflix’s praises. Yes, consumers love you when your hot, but is cold comfort.

Customers are emotional. They are human. This is why, when rebranding companies, we find the highest emotional intensity in the market. The higher the intensity, the more willing a consumer is to switch to you and the more loyal your current customers become. Never take for granted decisions that your customers will remain loyal if your brand is not aligned with that intensity. Loyalty is created by consistent and intense brand meaning. If you are not consistent, the intensity you have built will come crashing down. If your brand strays, so too will the customer.

So take heed brands. Make your decisions wisely and, above all, respect the power of an emotionally intensive brand. The decisions you make have a great effect on it.

For a minute there, Google+ felt like it was going to be really, really important. That it was going to be the game changer in the Social Networking world. Didn’t it?

It had all the momentum.

Nearly all of my technologically savvy friends were posting the warning signs on their Facebook wall, proclaiming that Facebook better beware because Google+ was much better. It started to feel like it this could be the death of Facebook.

So I beg the question, where did Google+ go? And why does it feel like it left us so quickly?

Here’s what I think the problem is.

Google+ hit the marketplace pushing its beta platform. Doing this meant that it was still ironing out all of the various kinks — in other words, making sure it had all of it’s components right. In doing so, they introduced Circles, a brilliant function, which allows users to easily click, drag, manage and categorize all of their online friends. It has video chat too. And aesthetically, the overall look and feel of Google+ is far more pleasing than Facebook.

But here is the problem — Google hit the market pushing a beta product. One that established ground-breaking social networking functions, like Circles, before it was fully really ready for the masses. Doing this gave Facebook the time to learn from Google+, since it was still under development. Consequentially, Facebook capitalized on what Google+ suggested the new table stakes were in the social media marketplace, and eventually improved upon its own, less powerful, product.

Very wisely, Facebook has now added video chat capabilities. Moreover, they recently announced “smart lists”, a function that automatically creates circles of friends for the online user.

My suggestion for Google+, do not push your service to the masses if it is not yet ready for the masses. Your brand is all about serving people and having those users connect efficiently with one another. By rushing to introduce your product, you have given Facebook the time and knowledge it needed to improve upon its weaknesses.

Ultimately, this gives users less of a reason to change from Facebook to Google+. And why would they, especially since Facebook can now do everything that Google+ can do?

Maybe this is why the last post from one of my aforementioned, technologically savvy friends was made five days ago on Google+, yet on Facebook, just five minutes. Seems like the incentive to change platforms is no longer there.

There are a number of IT/virtual companies that have gone public in recent days, including the recent $1 billion IPO filing from Zynga, the creator of “Farmville.”  Most of us have heard of the infamous “Farmville.” I have friends and colleagues who bemoan their news feeds being hijacked by others who are all too willing to share their “Farmville” prosperity with all of their “friends.”

Zynga promises to “connect the world through games.” If you go to its website you will see that, in addition to being able to play one of their many retooled versions of Farmville (such as Cityville and Fronteirville), you can also become part of its philanthropic organization of zynga.org. That’s where cartoon characters straight from the Zynga “villes” are unloading a truck to help victims of disasters. I guess now, in addition to wasting millions of hours online tending a virtual farm, I can also purchase some virtual goods to help out disaster victims.

On the surface this is great. Even though I don’t have the time or energy for Farmville and the rest of the “villes,”, they can aid in relief efforts without having to do a whole lot other than play the game and purchase some virtual goods with real money.

Let’s pretend for a moment that I can get over the fact that there are a great many people who are willing to pay real money for something that does not really exist. Or get over the apparent desire for a great many peopleto have a new hat for their computer generated avatar. Isn’t the money, after all,  for a good cause?

But then why file for a $1 Billion IPO?

Like all viral media, Zynga is no different. Farmville, by all accounts, is simply a viral media success reminecent of Tony Basil’s “Mickey” of the 80′s. It is a one-hit wonder hoping to cash in on the investors inability to discern what is real and virtual. If you think about it, Zynga is taking the same approach with its potential investors as it has with its legions of Farmville players. It is attempting to create value in something that does not exist.

This is the problem with everything viral and social media-esque. None of it is real. In fact, it seems like it is all a house of cards waiting to fall down. Even Zynga’s main vehicle for its games, Facebook, is starting to see plateauing if not decreasing membership numbers, particularly in the developed world.

In the virtual world, reality is suspended to a large degree and people can make this virtual world what they choose it to be. Just ask Tom MacMaster, the American male behind the Gay Girl in Damascus blog.

Because of this, brand, which is very real, must be basis for choice. If you asked most who created Farmville, I bet the answer would either be Facebook or “I don’t know.” This means Zynga has not worked to develop its brand as a means to choose. Rather, its ability to get someone to play a new game rests in how viral that game becomes.

Brand as a means for choice gives a company, especially one whose product is not real in a tangible sense, a way to develop loyalty and preference without relying on something having to “catch on” first. Zynga, though hugely successful with its pretend farm game, has not invested in its Zynga brand, and therefore must hope that it strikes viral gaming gold again or it runs the risk of becoming irrelevant.

I am not sure if I would be willing to invest $1 billion in the hopes that viral gaming gold will be struck again, although I do wonder how many virtual goods I could get for $1 billion?

There are several news reports recently that said Facebook has lost six million US users over the last year. While its user base continues to grow in developing countries, it seems that Facebook has plateaued in the US.

Facebook is an interesting case in terms of marketing and human behavior. Though there were other “social networks” that preceded it, Facebook has enjoyed the success or the influence more than all of them. But is Facebook a victim of its own success?

It is a funny thing with social media. There can only be one winner. Why would anyone join a network that no one was part of? You only want the one, like Facebook, that has (nearly) everybody.

However, can it be too big? We often tell clients that, in crowded market spaces with many competitors (and yes Facebook is seeing more and more competition), you have to tell the market who you are for, and equally important, who you are not for to be meaningful and impactful in that market. Facebook has forgotten this marketing dynamic. In fact, it seems Facebook would like everyone to think they have something for everyone.

The generic is never attractive. Everyone wants to feel special and reaffirmed, which is why brands must put a stake in the ground. The moment a consumers choice of a brand is rewarded by being like everyone else, they will start looking elsewhere for that affirmation.

You can say what you want about social media and its worth in the market place, but this is a highly debated topic and, if Facebook continues to lose membership, this argument will continue get louder. Perhaps Facebook has gotten to the point where it actually believes it is too big to fail and that its members should feel privileged to be part of Facebook. But this is exactly backwards and indicative of an organization primed to stumble.

Do I think Facebook will go away any time soon? Hardly. But unless it works harder to make its brand a reflection of its customers then Facebook will have a hard row to hoe in Farmville.

When it comes to creating a meaningful brand, getting the permission correct is key. If permissions of the target audience are overstepped by a brand, however great, it will result in an ineffective campaign. It is in discussing the perplexity of permissions that I mention the  example of “privacy”.

Privacy has always been a strong example regarding permissions due to the varying degree of scope in which the aspect of “privacy” is applied and the assorted permissions those manifestations can be assigned.  Take body scanners in airport terminals, an example of rejection due to lack of permission. An interesting dichotomy to that rejection would be in knowing what percentage of the travelers upset about scanners are members of Facebook, or better yet, tweeted about the injustice so that the world could subscribe and read their thoughts.

Members of Facebook create detailed profiles of themselves that include addresses, phone numbers and birthdays. They tag photos of themselves and others on vacation, at school, at work, and when inebriated. They update their status to let you know when they just saw a movie or just ate a candy bar.

Yet, it was just 10 years ago we were all in an uproar over wire tapping as part of the Patriot Act.

My point is not that the airport body scanners or the Patriot Act are either good nor bad, but rather the immense effect existing permissions can have on acceptance. Permissions have the power to take the singular idea of “privacy”, and create differing levels of acceptance regardless of how analogous each application of it might appear to be.

The foundation of building a strong brand is based on connecting that brand with the highest emotional intensity of the market. However, if the permissions of the target audience have not been correctly determined, then the highest emotional intensity that will be claimed will be rejection.

Forrester Research has just come out with paper that says most social media advertising for Gen-X and Gen-Y is wasted. The firm is right, and the reason for their conclusion is that social media advertising has too much clutter.

If a typical Gen-X or Gen-Yer has a Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, foursquare, and a Hi5 account, there are hundreds of “friends” being followed. Is it realistic to think that a message from a marketer is going to take precedence over commenting on a friend’s picture or status message?

With all of the “noise” these demographics invite into their lives, it is a safe bet they can adeptly filter out the unwanted noise. According to Forrester, that is exactly what they are doing.

Social media as a marketing tool has some real problems. It is very difficult, if not impossible to do social media marketing well over a long period of time. That is not to say that there is the occasional social media advertising “success,” but success in social media marketing has yet to be sustained over a period of time.

Even the lauded Old Spice spots are now just a blip in the memory banks of the very audience it wished to reach. A year from now, they will scarcely be remembered and will have done little to increase preference over the long term. Remember, with hundreds of friends tweeting, blogging, posting to their walls, and sending friend requests, this demographic’s memory span is about five tweets long when it comes to marketing messages.

Forrester Research contends, “Companies building new brands should focus their efforts on existing social platforms, offering topics and tools that haven’t been used by other social media marketers; those hoping to provide long-term support to established brands might choose to launch product- or brand-specific communities and networks.”

The conclusion there is that, in order to be successful in social media marketing, you have to do something that has not been done before (and then when it is copied, do something that has not been done before, and when it is copied…). Clearly this is not a marketing model that can be sustained. It sounds terrific for a business to say ,”Check us out on Facebook,” but wouldn’t you rather have audiences check you out at your web address or store location?

The problem is meaning and differentiation, as it always is. With social media marketing, it is difficult to get either. The marketer looses control of meaning when they put their latest webisode online and, once you have a good idea, you will instantly get copied. That is how social media marketing started in the first place, no?

There is a place for social media marketing, but only as a supplement to what you are already doing. But I do not see it as the savior of the ad business. There are a great many agencies that would like it to be (hence the reason they push it), but social media marketing as so many variables, most of which a marketer cannot control, that there are other more effective ways to spend that money.

Grow your business for the long term, not for the next five tweets.

With school now in session, including for two of my children, parents are once again aware of the influences technology has on their children’s success (or failure) in the classroom.

That’s one reason why a recent report out of the UK is gaining some media traction, and has been reflected by other studies in the US. The study reported that students who use Facebook while studying have grades 20 percent lower than those who do not.

The conclusion is that today’s youth are no better at multi-tasking than their parents, we should keep them focused on the task at hand and reduce social networking.

While I agree multi-tasking is a myth, the reason why the grades are lower is more directly related to belief systems than Facebook. In order for Facebook to be a distraction to those students, they have to believe social networking is more important than schoolwork. Otherwise, why would they be distracted?

Therefore, Facebook isn’t the problem. It could be anything that distracts them if they deem it more important to them than their studying.

I bring this up because it’s another example of how precepts, what you believe about yourself and the world, drive behavior and even predict it. In brand, we align brands with the most emotional precepts in the market so target audiences will see themselves in the brand and covet being a part of it.

To get there, though, you have see precepts driving all the behavior around you. Think about what belief system is driving behavior in any situation – even if it’s a new study drawing its own, probably misguided, conclusions – and the world becomes a more understandable place with solutions that treat the cause and not just the symptom.

It comes as no real surprise that Yahoo is expected to announce layoffs of several hundred soon, while also trying to partner with Microsoft to increase traffic on Yahoo’s search engine. Why is it no surprise? Because Yahoo has become old-school, and not in the good way.

For us old enough to remember the beginning stages of the Internet for personal use – you know, back when Adam was procreating with Eve – Yahoo had some “cool” cache. Its name was different and happy, and it was leading the way in navigating this new toy.

Then it got hit by all the specialists: Google showed up, and transformed the Internet from an unwieldy tool to something we use as casually as a TV remote.

Yahoo also tried to become a portal, complete with news, email, shopping and even an attempt at social networking. But then every news organization in the world developed its own news portal – with, especially, the TV cable networks such as CNN and FOX News taking center stage – and social networking became the province of Facebook and Twitter.

So, as Yahoo goes through another re-organization under a new CEO, it’s probably asking itself, “What happened?”

Answer: They tried to become everything to everybody. In today’s high-tech world, consumers seek expertise and focus. Meaning, if you’re everything to everybody, that’s means you’re nothing. You’re the cliche: A jack-of-all-trades and master of none. 

In today’s modern world, that means you’re old. We’re into specialty now, especially when it comes to technology. Remember the days when you played a different sport each season in high school? No longer. Athletes, as young as in the early teens, pick one sport and play that one sport all year round. 

Focus. Speciality. That’s why Google overtook the search engine, because its brand comes from that empty-looking home page with a search bar. Although Facebook and Twitter have other components, social networking remains their face and it’s what comes to mind first when consumers think of those providers.

It’s all sad to say because I consider myself old school. Back in the day, being competent and knowledgeable about many things used to mean you were a Renaissance Man. (And, yes, I’m one of the relative few who receive alerts from Yahoo. So there you go.)

Now, that’s the old way of thinking – and it can be the death-kneel for many brands.

To succeed anymore, you must put a stake in the ground and proclaim, “This is who I am.” That kind of clarity is what’s missing from Yahoo at the moment. Until they figure out who they are – and, most importantly, who the customer is when they use Yahoo – traffic will drop and advertising dollars will be spent elsewhere. It’s time Yahoo got with it.