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 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.

Have you tweeted today? If you haven’t, you’d better hop to it or risk being left behind – or so they say. Well, all that talk must be working because I’m now a tweeter, even though I wonder how anybody has enough time to, what’s the word, “social network.”

Before you call me a curmudgeon, let me warn you that I’m not one of those techno-phobes. I carry an iPhone, consider all the bells and whistles on my laptop to be of such importance I must show them to everyone in the office, and I download streaming video into my big screen, flat panel TV because simple network and cable TV is so archaic.

However, I’m not sure I get this need to always be connected. It probably says something about us living in a technological bubble unlike previous generations that knew everyone in town. (I barely even know my neighbors.)

The use of Twitter is going further than that, though. Businesses are finding new ways to connect with customers through Twitter and marketers have taken notice. It has become increasingly difficult for brands to “connect” with customers with DVRs and Tivo enabling viewers to fast-forward through the commercials. Consumers are now in control of their entertainment – the avenue for most marketing. We program our own playlists, use Netflix or iTunes and watch a Scot named Susan Boyle thrill the world on YouTube.

Tweeter as a brand is an interesting case. It is increasingly taking the place of Facebook, which is already feeling like yesterday’s news. The name, Facebook, of course, comes from “address book” and is, therefore, static. Tweeter suggests a moment in time. Even if the name only describes the process, it does suggest something about who we all are: Wanting to stay connected, but not having the time to do more than, uh, tweet.

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.

 “Google Inc may be in talks to buy internet start-up Twitter, the free micro-blogging service that allows people to send short text messages to a network of friends, the TechCrunch website said late Thursday.”

If you are reading this post, you probably got here as a result of the Google search engine.  This is really good news because if we have learned anything in the past year or two it is this: If we can possibly allow a single category of services (i.e. banks) to be controlled by a select few players (i.e.airlines) end user consumers (you and I) always benefit (get screwed) in the end. 

I think Microsoft should buy Apple so that technological innovation happens at a faster pace. 

Don’t you?