What Makes Steve Jobs So Great? (Repost)

My favorite quote:

“Which isn’t to say that he doesn’t think like a consumer–he just thinks like one standing in the near future, not in the recent past.

Steve Jobs isn’t an engineer or a designer. But he’s one of the greatest users of technology of all time, and that made all the difference.

In the wake of Steve Jobs’s resignation, let’s consider the greatest decision he ever made. It didn’t happen in a garage in Cupertino, sweating with Steve Wozniak as they dreamed up a computer for the common man. Or in a conference room, as managers told him that no one would ever pay $500 for a portable music player. Or in another conference room, as new managers told him no one would ever pay $400 for a cellphone. Rather, it was in a dusty basement of the Apple campus.

Jobs had just recently come back to the company, after a 12-year layoff working for two of his own startups: NeXT, which made ultra-high-end computers, and Pixar. He was taking a tour of Apple, becoming reacquainted with what the company had become in the years since he’d left. It must have been a sobering, even ugly sight: Apple was dying at the hands of Microsoft, IBM, Dell, and a litany of competitors who were doing what Apple did, only cheaper, with faster processors.

Jobs is perhaps the greatest user of technology to ever live.

His tour finally brought him to the workbench of a solitary designer who was ready to quit after just a year on the job, languishing amid a stack of prototypes. Among them was monolithic monitor with a teardrop swoop, which managed to integrate all of a computer’s guts into a single package. In that basement Jobs saw what middle managers did not. He saw the future. And almost immediately he told the designer, Jonathan Ive, that from here on out they’d be working side-by-side on a new line.

Steve Jobs may not be the greatest technologist or engineer of his generation. But he is perhaps the greatest user of technology to ever live, and it was Apple’s great fortune that he also happened to be the company’s founder.

Those computers that Ive and Jobs worked on became, of course, the iMac–a piece of hardware designed with an unprecedented user focus, all the way to the handle on top, which made it easy to pull out of the box. (“That’s the great thing about handles,” Ive told Fast Company in 1999. “You know what they’re used for.”) And while it seems condescending to say that Jobs’s greatest moment was finding someone else who was great, it’s not. That single moment in the basement with Ive tells you a great deal about what made Steve Jobs the most influential innovator of our time. It shows you the ability to see a company from the outside, rather than inside as a line manager. He didn’t see the proto iMac as a liability or a boondoggle. He saw something that was simply better than what had preceded it, and he was willing to gamble based on that instinct. That required an ability to think first and foremost as someone who lives with technology rather than produces it.

People often say that Jobs is, first and foremost, a great explainer of technology–a charismatic, plainspoken salesman who is able to bend those around him into a “reality distortion field.” But charisma can be bent to all sorts of purposes. Those purposes may very well be asinine. So what gives his plain-speaking such force? He always talks about how wonderous it will be to use something, to actually live with it and hold it in your hands. If you listen to Steve Jobs’s presentations over the years, he comes across not as the creator of a product so much as its very first fan–the first person to digest its possibilities.

Of course, when Steve Jobs has fancied himself the chief creator, disastrous failures often ensued. His instincts were often wrong. For example, his much ballyhooed Apple Cube, which was in fact a successor to the NeXT cube he’d developed during his Apple hiatus, was an $1,800 dud. He was also openly disdainful of the Internet in the late 1990s. And before his hiatus from Apple, in 1985, his meddling and micro-management had gotten out of control. But the years away reportedly helped him begin ceding more responsibilities to others, and become less of a technology freak and more of a user-experience savant. A reporter who asked Jobs about the market research that went into the iPad was famously told, “None. It’s not the consumers’ job to know what they want.” Which isn’t to say that he doesn’t think like a consumer–he just thinks like one standing in the near future, not in the recent past. He is a focus group of one, the ideal Apple customer, two years out. As he told Inc. magazine in 1989, “You can’t just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they’ll want something new.”

People also often reduce Jobs’s success to a ruthless perfectionism which sometimes led him to scrap a product simply because it didn’t feel right, or because some minor feature like a power button or a home screen seemed buggy and unresolved. (Famously, he tore through three prototypes of the iPhone in 2007 before the last passed muster; he also berated Ive early over the details of the USB port in the first iMac.) But that doesn’t get to it either. A myopic focus on details can readily destroy as much value as it creates: Just think about the number of times you’ve sat through a meeting with a boss who harped on details, killing a project before you ever had a chance to explain what it could be.

[The Mac Bashful, a proto tablet computer that Jobs asked Frog Design to mock up in 1983.]
[The forgotten Mac Professional, which presaged an integration of all your productivity gadgets.]

It’s almost certain that Jobs has killed far more great ideas than he ever let live–there are 313 patents under his name covering everything from packaging to user interfaces. But those that survived outweighed all the rest, simply because his focus was, continually, on what it would be like to come at some new product raw, with no coaching or presentation but simply as a dumb, weird new thing. Again, that’s ability to see past internal debates, and to look at a potential product with the fresh eyes of a user rather than a creator.

When Steve Jobs has fancied himself the chief creator, disastrous failures often ensued.

Perhaps the best example of this hides in plain sight, and is a fundamental part of every Apple product. All throughout the 1970s to the 1990s, if you ever opened up a new gadget the first thing you were ever faced with was figuring how the damn thing worked. To solve that, you’d have to wade through piles of instruction manuals written in an engineer’s alien English. But a funny thing happened with the iMac: Every year after, Apple’s instruction manuals grew thinner and thinner, until finally, today, there are none. The assumption is that you’ll be able to tear open the box and immediately start playing with your new toy. Just watch a 3-year-old playing with an iPad. You’re seeing a toddler intuit the workings of one of the most advanced pieces of engineering on the planet. At almost no time in history has that ever been possible. It certainly wasn’t when the first home computers were introduced, or the first TV remotes, or the first radios. And it was something he was driving for, his entire career. Again from 1989, Inc. asked him, “Do you sometimes marvel at the effect you’ve had on people’s lives?” And Jobs said: “There are some moments. I was in an elementary school just this morning, and they still had a bunch of Apple IIs, and I was kind of looking over their shoulders. Then I get letters from people about the Mac, saying, ‘I never thought I could use a computer before I tried this one.'”

There is, however, one decisive factor that Steve Jobs couldn’t control: Timing. Yet it was perfect for him. He was born just in time to become a founding father of the personal computer movement. But he was also still young enough that in 1997, he could lead while his own sense of a computer’s potential could finally bear fruit.

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, computers were being sold on their speed and features. This was the birthing period for computers, when their capabilities were just being limned. But by 2000, all of these had largely become commoditized–it no longer mattered how fast a computer was, when basic issues of usability and integration became so pressing. Just think back to your Windows machine of the time: What did speed matter if you didn’t even know what all the menus meant, or if you were hit with some weird bug that flashed pop-ups at you everytime you clicked your mouse?

Before 1997, Jobs was ahead of his time. The computers he made were overpriced for the market, because he thought that usability was more important than capability. But as computers reached maturity and became a feature in every home, his obsessions became more relevant to the market. And in fact, many of Apple’s recent signature products, such as the iPad or the iPhone, were based on products first conceived of in the 1990s or even the 1980s–they had to bide their time.

[Image by 37Prime]

All of this isn’t to say that Steve Jobs has been Apple’s sole arbiter of success: He purportedly has a great eye for talent. Moreover, he has taught his entire organization to play in the span of product generations rather than just product introductions: Apple designers say that now, each design they create has to be presented alongside a mock-up of how that design might evolve in the second or third generation. That should ensure Apple’s continued success for as long as a decade. But it’s not totally clear that anyone else can equal his talent for being able to look at Apple’s product’s from the outside view of a user. Tim Cook, his anointed successor, proved his worth by totally revamping Apple’s production processes and supply chain. That talent is vital to running the business, and has increased Apple’s profits by untold billions. But being able to break apart the nuances of sourcing is the precise opposite of being a usability genius: Cook’s career has largely been spent focusing on precisely those things the consumernever sees.

Does Cook have an in-house product critic, who could stand in Jobs’s place? Will Cook have as close a working relationship with Ive as Jobs did? Will Ive even stay? And did Steve Jobs create an entire organization that shared his balance of concerns–for the back-end yes, but for usuability first and foremost? The biggest risk is that Apple has taken for granted that its superior design should demand a price premium. That might lull them into thinking that Apple is great, rather than its products. But Apple, all along, has only been as good as its last “insanely great” thing.

Cliff Kuang


Cliff is the editor of Co.Design, and in the past has written regularly for WIRED, Popular Science and GOOD. … Read more

• Twitter


Nuggets from Seth: The Facts and Selling The Benefits of Charity



A couple of notes from Seth Godin (Marketing Extraordinaire) relating to marketing for Non-Profits that have caught my attention recently.

The facts

A statement of fact is insufficient and often not even necessary to persuade someone of your point of view.

I was going to end the post just like that, but then I realized that I was merely telling you a fact, one that might not resonate. Here’s the riff:

Politicians, non-profits and most of all, amateur marketers believe that all they need to do to win the day is to recite a fact. You’re playing Monopoly and you say, “I’ll trade you Illinois for Connecticut.” The other person refuses, which is absurd. I mean, Illinois costs WAY more than Connecticut. It’s a fact. There’s no room for discussion here. You are right and they are wrong.

But they still have the property you want, and you lose. Because all you had was a fact.

On the other hand, the story wins the day every time. When the youngest son, losing the game, offers to trade his mom Baltic for Boardwalk, she says yes in a heartbeat. Because it feels right, not because it is right.

Your position on just about everything, including, yes, your salary, your stock options, your credit card debt and your mortgage are almost certainly based on the story you tell yourself, not some universal fact from the universal fact database.

Not just you, everyone.

Work with that.

Selling the benefits of charity

Everything we do, we do because somehow it benefits us.

We go to work for the satisfaction (I hope) and because we get paid. We smile at a stranger because it feels good to be nice (and perhaps we’ll get a smile in return). We pick up litter when no one is looking because telling ourselves a story about being a good person is worth the effort.

Some people have figured out that charity is an incredible bargain. For the time and money it costs, the benefits exceed what could be attained in almost any other way. A bargain compared to chocolate, or an amusement park visit or buying a shiny new car you probably don’t need.

For some, the benefit is in the way society respects the donor. Hence buildings named after Andrew Carnegie or Bill Gates. For many, though, hidden charity is worth far more, because the incentives are purer. A donation earns you peace of mind.

I’m fascinated by people who see no benefit in donating to charity, who, in fact, see a negative. My hunch is that for these people, the worldview is: if charity is important, I better give more. If that’s true, the thinking goes, then whatever I give isn’t going to make me feel good, it’s going to make me feel worse… for not giving enough. Easier to just avoid the issue altogether.

I think marketers of causes that do good have a long way to go in selling the public on the core reason to give… don’t give because you get a tote bag, or a prize at the charity auction or even a plaque. The scalable unique selling proposition is that being part of the community is worth more than it costs.

Tim Tebow: Blasphemer? (Repost)

I’m constantly amazed (and certainly more frequently than I’d like – guilty of) how quickly the body of Christ – other Christians, are critical of other Christians (“famous” or not) for their own gain. Whether it’s for their headline, their own entertainment or self-promotion. It’s disappointing – and yes, I’m including myself in this group – and yes, I’m disappointed with myself when I do it too.

I’m not ready to anoint Tebow with the title of “Saint” and I’m pretty sure, he’s not seeking the title. But to this point, what have we seen in him that would suggest that he’s using his faith in a “name it and claim it” way to “guarantee” his success? I don’t know his heart or his motives, but, when we see his fruit – the results of his actions, he seems to be on track.

I think one of the many dangers for the body is when we think we’re the ones in the position to judge. Yes, we are to correct the brother who is sinning, and yes Scripture tells us a lot about discipline (in all areas of our life), but judgement, that is reserved the Lord, and the Lord alone. I’m not suggesting that we “gloss” over sin, call it somethings else so it doesn’t sound as bad, “…I didn’t lie, I just ‘bent’ the truth…” (really?!?), as we are so skilled at doing, but I think I need to be much more willing to put down the rocks that I so badly want to throw at the prostitute… unfortunately, I want to throw those rocks from the living room of my glass house.

Jesus told me…told us to “judge not, that you be not judged” (Matt. 7:1), yet later we’re told that when the Lord passes judgment, our response will be “Yes, Lord…true and just are your judgments” (Rev 16:7), because, as He always does, He gets it, not just right, but perfect.

Tim Tebow: Blasphemer?

You don’t preach the gospel if you fear criticism. Same goes for playing quarterback. Tim Tebow evangelizes while playing quarterback, making him one of the most heavily scrutinized public figures in America. Following a legendary career in which his University of Florida Gators to two national championships, the first hint of failure in the National Football League was bound to bring out the naysayers. Before his second professional season has even begun in Denver, that time has come. Tebow’s outspoken Christian faith only makes him a bigger target. Signs that he may not succeed in the NFL have even called his theology into question.

CBSSports.com national columnist Gregg Doyel dissected a recent Tebow statement the way analysts have picked apart Tebow’s unorthodox throwing motion. The occasion was unexpected news that Tebow would not begin the season as Denver’s starting quarterback. Tebow defended the quality of his play, vowing he work hard, improve, and become the star so many hope and expect him to be.

“Others who say I won’t make it are wrong,” Tebow said in an interview with a Denver Postcolumnist. “They don’t know what I’m capable of and what’s inside me. My family and my friends have been bothered by what’s gone on, and I tell them to pay no attention to it. I’m relying as always on my faith.”

This last sentence prompted Doyel’s theological reflection. Brandishing his Christian bona fides, Doyel made it clear that he harbors no personal animus for Tebow, as so many others do. He lauded him as a person, as a Christian role model, describing Tebow as one of the nicest people he’s ever seen. He even granted that Tebow should—indeed, must—be confident if he wants to succeed in such a high-pressure position.

Still, Doyel wondered where failure fits in Tebow’s theological scheme. What if God wants him to back up starting quarterback Kyle Orton? Is that not a possibility? Must he become a superstar? Does faith entitle him to this coveted role? Lots of good God-fearing football players—never mind the rest of us who peaked in high school—never find success in the NFL.

“From the outside it looks like Tebow equates his love for God in heaven with tangible rewards here on earth,” Doyel wrote. “And that’s more than wrong. It’s blasphemy.”

I’m not sure if Doyel knows what blasphemy is, or the seriousness of the charge he’s leveling against Tebow. Meriam-Webster defines blasphemy as “the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God,” or “the act of claiming the attributes of deity.” I don’t see how he can get all of that out of one column, let alone a couple brief comments open to interpretation.

Less heretically, Tebow could be saying he relies on his faith to withstand criticism and pressure, not that he finds assurance in his future as a starting quarterback because God loves him. The point is that we can’t be sure of his intent, based on these comments alone. When Tebow says, “I know that all this (controversy) will have a way of working out,” he might be echoing the Christian hope of Romans 8:28, that God works all things together for good for those who are called according to his purpose. Good, here, does not necessarily mean on-field success as defined by football wins and signing bonus riches. As a Christian, Tebow presumably knows this. In fact, God sometimes works our good through loss and poverty.

Standing on the Rock

Already Tebow has earned many millions by virtue of his selection in the first round of the NFL Draft in 2010. He was already such a sensation in high school that his games sometimes appeared on national television. I stood near fans at one college who hoisted signs in front of ESPN television cameras pleading for him to play for their school. His Florida teams won two national championships. While he was still playing, the school commemorated one of his speeches with a plaque outside their football facilities. He won the Heisman Trophy, one of the most prestigious awards in college athletics.

No one would really fault Tebow if he struggled with life as an NFL backup. He has only known success. Well, almost. That acclaimed speech during his junior season followed an unacceptable loss to an underdog conference rival. It firmed his resolve to succeed. So he’s proven that he can overcome setbacks.

But something different happened his senior year in 2009. After being ranked number one all season, the Gators lost in the Southeastern Conference championship game to number two Alabama. Overcome with emotion, he knelt on the sidelines and cried. Rival fans mocked him. After all, this was the first the fierce competitor who only one month earlier had defeated Florida State while covered in field paint, looking like aBraveheart extra. There would be no passionate speech, no chance for on-field redemption. Only the bitter reality of unmet expectations, a story that didn’t end as it should have with the Gator hero on top.

Criticizing Tebow, Doyel missed the real story. Tebow doesn’t believe God has promised him success. He does worry, however, that if he doesn’t succeed in the NFL, he will disappoint his family and legions of fans.

“I know there are a lot of people who believe in me as a player and a person,” Tebow told the Denver Post, “and I don’t want to let them down.”

This fear is a powerful, if dangerous, motivator. Tebow puts a lot of pressure on himself. He wants success, because success means fans, and fans mean people will hear him preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. Some might even be compelled by his success as a football player and role model to believe what he believes. If he doesn’t play in Denver, everything falls apart. Or so Tebow may fear.

I pray this is not how he truly thinks, because no one needs this kind of pressure. Indeed, no one can stand it. Only Jesus is the perfect role model who never fails us, who triumphed over death even when the world mocked him as a failure. None can compare. Thankfully, we don’t need to. God has won the ultimate victory that secures eternal fellowship with him for all who believe.

If Tebow fails in Denver, he can learn from the example of his friend, former Texas Longhorns and current Cleveland Browns quarterback Colt McCoy. He lost that same season to Alabama, one month after Tebow did, in the national championship game. But his circumstances were even more painful. A crushing hit knocked McCoy out of his final college game. Clearly choked up and searching for words while talking with a reporter afterward, McCoy gave a reason for the hope in him (1 Pet. 3:15).

“I always give God the glory,” McCoy said. “I never question why things happen the way they do. God is in control of my life, and if nothing else, I know I’m standing on the Rock.”

There was real power in the words he spoke—not just because they were true, but because he delivered them in such difficult circumstances. Disappointment gave his words weight. The same may be true for Tebow, too, if he never succeeds in Denver. Faith amid failure may be the most powerful testimony to God’s unconditional grace he ever delivers.

Read the original post: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2011/08/12/tim-tebow-blasphemer/

Sometimes The Best Customer Experience Is No Customer Experience (Repost)

I came across this article the other day and applaud the sentiment. So often as marketers we are constantly looking for the “new toy”, “shiny bauble” or “killer app” all the while our base/foundation is being neglected. “How can I/We make it easy for the customer to do business with me/us?” needs to be the first litmus test we run any idea through.

The John Logue quote, “it’s almost impossible to overestimate the unimportance of most things.” has applications to nearly every facet of life. I can’t even count how many times the quote has been added to my conversations (both public and private) in the last week.

Posted by Jim Barnes on July 25, 2011
photo from istock

A few days ago, I came across a most delightful quote attributed to John Logue. He said “it’s almost impossible to overestimate the unimportance of most things.” It seems to me that this quote might form the basis for a discussion on how a firm should approach its customer experience strategy.

I spend a lot of time thinking and talking about customer experience with clients and at speaking engagements. I believe that organizations should be paying a great deal more attention to the customer experience they are providing. But, let’s think about exactly what delivering a customer experience might consist of and when it’s appropriate to try to create an impressive experience.

Some firms have made a considerable effort to deliver an effective customer experience strategy. Others do not seem to have paid as much attention or even to have given much thought to the notion. The result is that many deliver inconsistent and often negative experiences on a regular basis. They clearly do not understand what the customer experience entails or its potential to influence satisfaction and loyalty.

I believe also that the customer experience deserves a great deal of thought if firms are going to offer a meaningful experience to customers. But some would have you believe that every customer experience has the potential to be meaningful, to be a “Wow!” experience. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

In this context, I am also reminded of Jerry Seinfeld’s observation that his hit TV show was a program about nothing. Jerry was successful in building a show and possibly a career on nothing. He, George, Elaine and Kramer played themselves and the show was about the things that happened in their daily lives. That’s precisely what most customer experiences are about; the things that happen to us as we go about the routine that characterizes our lives. Included in those experiences is the stop on the way home to fill up the tank, the Saturday afternoon movie matinée with the kids, the weekly trip to the supermarket, the monthly visit to the hair dresser, the commuter flight home after a week on the road. Not exactly the things that stimulate or excite us. Just stuff we have to get done.

How many of these experiences are memorable or even have the potential to be memorable?

Most customer experiences are considered by customers to be successful if nothing happens; or, more precisely, if nothing negative happens. Most interactions are mundane and need not be turned into something over the top or entertaining or special or memorable. Customers just want to get in and out and get what they need with no mistakes, no delays and no bad surprises.

In commenting on the recently announced commitment of a local healthcare authority to “provide the best care possible to those we serve and ensure their stay in one of our facilities is a positive experience”, a newspaper columnist questioned the likelihood of turning a hospital visit into a positive experience. He observed “if you’re lying on a stretcher or visiting a sick relative, the most you can hope for is an experience free of nasty surprises.”

Consider the stop at the supermarket on the way home to pick up a few grocery essentials. You want to find a place to park, get in and out quickly, not find yourself behind a guy with 37 items in the “10 items or less” line, and get home in time to get dinner ready.

It’s Friday, you’ve been on the road all week and you’ve booked a 7 PM commuter flight home to Philadelphia. What do you want to happen? Nothing! Or nothing bad at least.

The best strategy when delivering most “customer experiences” may be to make sure things don’t go wrong. Most companies would be advised to address this point before setting out to surprise and delight with the unexpected. In most customer interactions, nothing important happens. No opportunity exists to offer anything meaningful or remotely exciting.

Particularly in the case of businesses offering routine services, regularly delivered to customers, the best customer strategy is to make sure nothing goes wrong. Think about the nature of the experience your customers expect and the one that they would like to encounter when dealing with you. Some customer interactions lend themselves to over-the-top service, surprising enhancements, and even entertainment, but most do not. Most interactions with customers are routine and your best approach to delivering a satisfying experience is simply to make sure they can accomplish what they want to get done with nothing going terribly wrong.

Live Long and Market: Small Business Branding (Repost)

Marketing is the process of communicating your value to your public. Whether it’s a product or service, if what you offer has value and solves a problem, then you need to market it in a way that lets your target audience know just how important it is to their  lives.

If marketing is communication, then your brand is a part of the message. According to the American Marketing Association a brand is a “name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies one seller’s good or service as distinct from those of other sellers.” And everyone can afford to be distinctive (at least on some level) — distinctively simple, distinctively effective, etc.

You have to stand out to the right people (your target audience) for the right reasons (you solve their problem in a way that resonates with them).  In other words, your brand – your distinction – is the consistent message about what your product is and what it does. Your logo, your tagline, your key phrases, your service style and your customer service team all advance your brand. The more consistent and frequent the message, the more people hear you.

Who Loves Your Brand the Most?

In “How to Recognize and Reward Brand Advocacy,” Yvonne DiVita makes a distinction between your fans and brand advocates. She says, “Brand advocates do things like write a blog around your product, or tweet about you daily, and faithfully follow you on Facebook.” She says the brand advocate is more devoted than a fan and is “loyal to a fault – all without being asked or compensated.” Sounds like somebody you want on your team.

While marketing seems to come with a lot of terms that make it easy to slip into semantics, Yvonne’s key point resonates with me.  She encourages us to find your brand advocates, “understand them, reward them and measure their engagement.”  And she provides suggestions on how to get it done.

How Do You Advance Your Brand Online?

If you accept the role of marketing and the impact that branding can have, then you have the choice to advance your message in print as well as online.  In “The 6 Biggest Social Media Mistakes Brands Make,” Janet Thaeler discusses the common errors we all make, including the impersonal initial contact. Have you seen or done this before:

  1.     Person finds you (or you find person).
  2.     Person wants to connect with you (or you want to connect with person).
  3.     Person writes you some stiff email to “connect” (or you’re the one writing the “stiff” email).
  4.     Person gets disappointed as you wonder “who is this?” and naturally deflect the interaction  (or vice versa).

It’s all in the greeting.

In order to make this conversation work you need a touchstone, a point of conversational contact, a reason to talk that’s a little bigger than just you. Janet says, “The initial contact with someone you hope to work with should be personable….To get a feel for what they are interested in and care about, read their blog and Twitter stream.” Her other five tips are helpful as well. But what if you swear that social media is not the thing for you….

How Do You Advance Your Brand Offline?

Maybe your clients aren’t online and just don’t use Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc. Maybe. In “5 Powerful Alternatives for Social Media Haters,” Ivana Taylor accepts your  hatred of social media (I say that in jest) and offers you solutions.

Ivana says, “The number-one benefit marketers found from using social media is brand and company exposure.” But if you discover that your target market doesn’t use social media, then she says “your best bet is to create your own community,” starting with building a list.

Your goal is to create a community, and your email list and email campaign are among the most effective ways to connect and advance that relationship. While I believe in social media, connecting by email is also a solid foundation for business – and laying a foundation always comes first. Ivana also gives advice on how to handle your blog and tips on how to engage your developing community.

In the spirit of Spock (yes, Star Trek) and spoken directly to your business: Live long and market.

Read the original article: http://www.businessinsider.com/live-long-and-market-small-business-branding-2011-7#ixzz1Tn1vm8up