Lee Egstrom

What Are You Gonna Do About It?

Sun, 21 Oct 2012 13:39:19 -0400

What if you keep doing what you’ve always done? You’ll keep getting what you’ve always gotten. This used to be true.

Right now, we are currently living through the greatest technological shift of history. This means there are more opportunities for your competition and more opportunities for new competitors to arise.

So in this day and age, if you keep doing what you’ve always done you will get less and less.

Once you know that, you also realize it is urgent for you to make changes in your marketing, sales, customer service and other areas of your business to take advantage of the changes in your industry and advances in technology.

Whether it’s social media, search engine optimization, pay per click advertising, blogs or banner ads. It is your responsibility to know the changing landscape.

I know that there are legal woes for businesses. So I hired a lawyer.

I know that I need my taxes prepared properly or there’ll be consequences. So, I hired an accountant.

It is not important for me to be the best at these jobs. It is important that I know that it needs to be done.

I hire experts so that I can focus on my expertise to grow and expand my business.

Therefore, it is not important that you know how to execute a banner ad, pay per click campaigns or proper social media marketing. However it is of the upmost importance that you realize the new business landscape.

The Internet is not going anywhere. It is continuing to grow and new devices as well as new technologies are continuing to disrupt old business models everyday.

Think of these three examples of old business models which is caused many to go out of business; travel agencies, pocket cameras and phone books.

When is the last time you booked a hotel or flight through a travel agent? Most people do this online.

Over the last few decades advances in technology allowed cameras to become smaller and smaller. Pocket cameras became very common and sold by the million. When was the last time you used a pocket camera? Why would you, chances are your cell phone has a better camera built right in!

Phone books and directories have been common advertising methods for decades. Over the last 15 years Internet directories like yahoo and search engines like google have all but replaced them. This has been accelerated by advances in cell phones over the last 5 or 6 years. Now most people carry an Internet device in their pocket with access to an infinite amount of knowledge.

So, what are you gonna do about it?

Winners, Losers and Spectators

Thu, 29 Dec 2011 10:33:33 -0500

If you ask around, most people will tell you that they desire to be winners. But their actions dictate that they really want to be spectators.

When you set out to win you always run the risk of losing. People are inherently programmed from the day we are born to avoid risk.

Don’t crawl to the edge of the couch or touch the stove. Don’t run to fast or climb to high. It’s dangerous.

I saw a commercial recently with the following quote: “I have missed more than 9,000 shots in my career. I have lost almost 300 games. On 26 occasions I have been entrusted to take the game winning shot… and I missed. I have failed over and over and over again in my life.” - Michael Jordan

I think most people choose to be spectators because it is safe.

It may be true that sitting on the sidelines does not have appear to have any risk.

This is an illusion. Spectators risk dying without knowing what may have been. Who they may have married, if they could have written a book or learned another language. They risk wasting their lives watching others go through the ups and downs of life. Playing it safe.

There is nothing to be gained by being a spectator.

Playing down on the field has tremendous risk.

You can get hurt in the game.

You can lose in front of everyone, have your ego bruised, reputation scaved and get a serious case of the yips.

You risk being a loser. For there to be winners there must be losers.

Losers must exist for winning to be valuable. I will not buy into a system where all players are rewarded just for participation.

Lately I’ve noticed a trend in youth sports that I find appalling. I’ve heard it argued that it is unfair that some players don’t receive trophies.

Well, nobody said life was fair. Losers must buck up, keep a stiff upper lip and live to fight another day. If you want a trophy, earn one.

It’s ok to be a loser. Hey, at least you’re not a spectator.

The only thing worse than being a loser is being a spectator.

Sure the spoils only go to the victor.

But, the spectator never even gave themselves a chance.

The Perfect Gift For The Man or Woman Who Has It All!

Sun, 25 Dec 2011 20:12:00 -0500

As I was growing up I can remember more then dozen or so products that claimed they were “the perfect gift for the person who has it all!”

Well, I would like to propose that the perfect gift for someone who has it all is absolutely nothing. Because they have it all.

Instead, take the money and buy something for someone who has next to nothing, or not enough.

Then if you’d like to give the person who has it all a little something, give them a card with a note that reads something to the affect of;

“Dear Friend, I had trouble finding just the right gift. You seem to have it all.

So I took the money I had set aside for your gift and spent it on someone less fortunate.

You just bought the homeless Joe down on the corner a new coat.”

Just a thought…

Note: If you felt jaded that I didn’t send you something don’t feel bad. The last few years, I actually took the money and bought a truckload of toys and dropped it off at 2 shelters and a church over in the hood…

Merry Christmas

Super Bowl vs Google & Facebook

Sun, 18 Dec 2011 14:05:00 -0500

Super Bowl VS. Facebook and Google

For the second year in a row, the Super Bowl has set a record for American television viewing.

The Nielsen Co. said that an estimated 111 million people watched the Green Bay Packers outlast the Pittsburgh Steelers in professional football’s ultimate game in 2011. That tops the 106.5 million who watched the 2010 game between New Orleans and Indianapolis.

The average cost of a 30-second Super Bowl ad is $3 million. That’s $6 a minute.

Research conducted by Randle D. Raggio professor of marketing at the University of Richmond in Virginia helps to chart the ROI (Return On Investment). Based on their calculations,

Snickers would have to sell 6,329,406 candy bars to pay for a $3 million ad.
Bridgestone would have to sell 298,656 tires.
Skechers (SKX) would have to sell 205,339 pairs of shoes.

Cheap and expensive are relative terms. But, most of us can agree, $3 million for 30seconds of airtime is fairly expensive.

175 Million people log onto Facebook everyday.
Google Gets 620 Million Daily visitors to Google is
50% of People on the Internet visit Google.
YouTube gets 3 Billion views per day.

We can help our customers reach out to a larger audience than the Super Bowl for a few hundred to a few thousand dollars per month.

In a recent poll of small businesses in the United States, 85.6% of the respondents rated Google Advertising as better than newspapers, with more than half indicating Google was “a lot” better. A staggering 94.2% rated Google as better than the Yellow Pages.

Do you own a small business or know someone who could use our help getting more customers? Contact my search engine marketing company in Lancaster to find out how we can help. Click Here

Web Marketing Roundup: 4 Things I Learned This Week | Business 2 Community

Sun, 11 Dec 2011 12:36:52 -0500

Web Marketing Roundup: 4 Things I Learned This Week | Business 2 Community:

Elisa has done it again with this great article on conversion tips she learned this week.

I really enjoy Elisa’s writing style and how she shows practical examples utilizing the techniques she outlines.

Don’t have time to read the articles or do the research? Let @avwebdesigns do the work for you: www.avwebdesigns.com

Simon Sinek: Start With Why - How Great Leaders Inspire Action

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 13:10:00 -0400

Simon Sinek: Start With Why - How Great Leaders Inspire Action

"Martin Luther King gave the ‘I Have a Dream’ speech, not the ‘I Have a Plan’ speech."

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 13:09:36 -0400

“Martin Luther King gave the ‘I Have a Dream’ speech, not the ‘I Have a Plan’ speech.”

- Simon Sinek (via erikacervantes)

Dig yourself a hole!

Mon, 15 Aug 2011 20:20:00 -0400

Make big promises.

Burn your boats.

Set yourself up in a place where you have few options and the stakes are high.

Focused energy and serious intent will push you to do your best work. You have nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. (Better than the alternative).

- Seth G.

About this presentation In this wide-ranging talk,...

Sat, 06 Aug 2011 16:30:39 -0400

About this presentation In this wide-ranging talk, ethnographer and leadership expert Simon Sinek discusses the importance of trust, authenticity, and meaning. Sinek argues that as individuals and companies, everything that we say and do is a symbol of who we are. And it is only when we communicate our beliefs authentically that we can attract others to our cause, and form the bonds that will empower us to achieve truly great things. About Simon Sinek A trained ethnographer and the author of Start With Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action, Simon Sinek has held a life-long curiosity for why people and organizations do the things they do. Studying the leaders and companies that make the greatest impact in the world and achieve a more lasting success than others, he discovered the formula that explains how they do it. Sinek’s amazingly simple idea, The Golden Circle, is grounded in the biology of human decision-making and is changing how leaders and companies think and act.

His innovative views on business and leadership have earned him invitations to meet with an array of leaders and organizations, including Microsoft, Dell, SAP, Intel, Chanel, Members of the United States Congress, and the Ambassadors of Bahrain and Iraq.

Sinek recently became an adjunct staff member of the RAND Corporation, one of the most highly regarded think tanks in the world. He also works with the non-profit Education for Employment Foundation to help create opportunities for young men and women in the Middle East region. He lives in New York, where he teaches graduate level strategic communications at Columbia University.

How Apple Led The High-Stakes Patent Poker Win Against Google, Sealing Ballmer's Promise

Wed, 27 Jul 2011 12:57:16 -0400

“It’s not like Android’s free. Android has a patent fee. You do have to license patents.”

That was Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer in an interview last year with The Wall Street Journal. At the time, Microsoft was on the verge of releasing their first Windows Phone 7 devices, and knew their best hope in the market would be to go after Android — the same OS which quickly ran Windows Mobile into extinction. In the months that have followed, right or wrong, it looks like Microsoft is slowly but surely forcing Google’s OEM partners for Android to agree with this stance.

The reality is that for an increasing number of these partners now, Android is not free. It doesn’t require the licensing fees that Windows Phone does, but it does require a patent fee. A fee paid to Microsoft, not Google, mind you.

If Microsoft is able to convince (or force) Samsung to pay this fee as well, it’s likely lights out for Android as a free OS, as Tom Krazit rightly points out on paidContent today. And with Microsoft and now HP offering their own rival mobile OSes backed by a vast array of patent protection, some of these OEM partners may begin to think twice about their firm Android commitments. At least, that’s undoubtedly Microsoft’s hope. Android as a free mobile OS that rivals iOS in terms of functionality is an unbelievable value proposition. But Android as an OS that requires you to pay Microsoft for each unit shipped is less so.

Google’s last great chance to save Android in this regard may have been the Nortel patent purse — 6,000+ patents spanning mobile and wireless innovation. Unfortunately, the search giant lost the rights to those patents in a bidding war with their rivals. As a result — pending government inquiries surrounding the antitrust implications of all of this — Android remains very vulnerable. Perhaps more so than ever.

But the story of just how Google failed to secure these patents — which many had assumed they’d win — may be even more fascinating.

This Canadian court document (PDF), made public on Wednesday and linked to by Krazit in his piece, details exactly how Google lost the Nortel patents. The entire document is extremely long, but most of the good parts are in the earlier parts — aside from the documents later on in which Google’s name as the winner of the bidding is crossed off in favor of “Rockstar Bidco”, the name of the consortium made up of Google’s rivals that won.

As everyone knows, Google kicked things off by putting down the “stalking horse” bid on April 4. This bid of $900 million ensured that the auction would take place, and put Google in the driver’s seat for it. This bid led many to believe that Google would eventually prevail as the winner of the Nortel patents. In fact, many inside of Google believed they would win as well, we’re told. The company even did a blog post outlining why they were bidding.

As Kent Walker, a Google Senior Vice President and General Counsel, wrote in a post entitled “Patents and innovation“:

Today, Nortel selected our bid as the “stalking-horse bid,” which is the starting point against which others will bid prior to the auction. If successful, we hope this portfolio will not only create a disincentive for others to sue Google, but also help us, our partners and the open source community—which is integrally involved in projects like Android and Chrome—continue to innovate.

Google chose to use the name “Ranger” for their bidding.

Meanwhile, others interested in the patents began to organize themselves for the auction which would take place at the end of June. At the same time, the U.S. government began looking into the bidding to determine how the outcomes might affect the mobile and patent ecosystem. The DoJ quickly determined that a Google win would be okay, but they weren’t as sure about Apple, apparently.

At the same time, Microsoft began to complain that the auction could result in a termination of the existing licensing agreements they had on the Nortel patents. And while they never specifically mentioned Google, it was pretty clear that they did not want Google winning — such a victory would eliminate at least some of Microsoft’s patent leverage over Android.

But this complaining was odd since we had heard that the existing licensing agreement on the Nortel patents would have to be honored by any winning bidder. So what was Microsoft complaining about? At least some believe Microsoft was just playing mind games at this point — mind games which would later come into play.

Ultimately, four different parties were chosen by Nortel to be allowed to make bids on the patents, in addition to Ranger (Google), the stalking horse winner: Apple, Rockstar Bidco (a consortium — more on that in a bit), Intel, and Norpax (an affiliate of RPX Corporation).

The auction commenced on June 27 at 9:15 AM in New York. Intel made the starting bid — it’s not clear what that bid was, except that it was over the $900 million initial Google bid. After Intel, everyone was told that the minimum bid increments would be $5 million. All of the remaining bidders made bids.

The Nortel group looked them over and determined to raise the threshold for the bid increments to $50 million from $5 million — thus beginning round two of the auction. This time, only three bids were received. Norpax did not bid. A new leading bid was declared (unknown) and Nortel decided to up the increments to $100 million. Because Norpax had not bid, they were removed from the auction and the number of participants fell to four: Ranger (Google), Apple, Intel, and Rockstar Bidco.

It was around this time that Google began making odd bids, based around mathematical constants. The Nortel group was apparently confused by the seemingly random numbers Google was bidding. Reports have stated that they weren’t sure if Google was “extremely confident or bored”. Others believed Google was trying to confuse their rival bidders.

Still, while Nortel may have not known what to think, Google remained in the race.

By the fifth round of bidding, it was Rockstar Bidco that decided not to submit a bid. This brought the group of bidders down to three: Google, Apple, and Intel.

Then something really interesting happened.

Following Rockstar’s seeming exit, Apple asked Nortel for permission to talk to the group about a possible partnership. This request was granted. Following these discussions, Apple decided they wanted to partner with Rockstar and adopt their name and transaction structure.

Essentially, Apple decided to stake the Rockstar group in this high-stakes poker game.

If you’ve seen Casino Royale (the remake, not the original campy version), you’ll recall the scene where James Bond loses all his money attempting to call what he believes to be a Le Chiffre bluff. He is forced to exit the game, but then Felix Leiter, the CIA operative also in the game, tells Bond he’ll stake him since he’s clearly the stronger player. Again, that’s more or less what Apple did with this maneuver to Google’s Le Chiffre.

After the sixth round of bidding, Intel indicated it too was withdrawing. At this point, the two remaning groups were allowed to discuss partnership opportunities with all of those who had withdrawn. By the end of the eight round, Ranger (Google) partnered with Intel.

It was now down to Ranger (Google + Intel) versus Apple (staking Rockstar). For the next 10 rounds, the two sides traded bids in $100 million increments.

By the 19th round, Apple (Rockstar) presented a $4.5 billion bid. Ranger (Google) asked for permission to take some time to think about making another bid, this was granted. They ultimately decided not to continue. Apple (in partnership with Rockstar) was declared the winner.

While much of the press after the auction focused on the Rockstar group’s win, the court documents make it very clear that it was actually Apple that won in partnership with Rockstar. Apple was the only group that had not dropped out. Again, they staked the Rockstar group to ensure a victory for the stronger player. Why was Rockstar the stronger player? Because of the other companies involved. RIM, EMC, Ericsson, Sony, and yes, Microsoft.

All of those groups together had the cash and clout to break Google’s will. And with Microsoft, there was clearly the desire.

But why on Earth was Microsoft doing bidding on patents they already had licensing rights to? That’s not yet clear. But one has to assume that they simply did not want Google winning them — at all.

Even if Microsoft maintained licensing rights to the patents, a Google win would ensure that it would be a lot harder to sue Android and its OEM partners for other patent infringements. So it sure looks like Microsoft teamed up with longtime enemy Apple to ensure victory.

And if the U.S. and/or Canadian governments don’t now either block this result (which seems unlikely given that they approved the bidders beforehand) or force fairly drastic changes (such as they did in the Novell patent case) — which Google will have to lobby heavily for — Android seems to be in some very serious trouble.

Things didn’t ultimately end well for Le Chiffre, remember.

Some great unscripted client testimonials. For more info visit...

Sat, 21 May 2011 12:57:04 -0400

Some great unscripted client testimonials. For more info visit our Web Design Company in Lancaster, CA

Thanks for taking the time to check it out. If you have any comments or can think of improvements for the next video please let me know!

Google - Ten things we know to be true

Sat, 30 Apr 2011 17:41:00 -0400

While working on a few internal company docs I decided to re-read Google’s 10 things list. If you have not read it yet, you should. It’s great food for thought for business owners (not just in the tech space), geeks and even everyday Google users.

Ten things we know to be true

“The perfect search engine,” says co-founder Larry Page, “would understand exactly what you mean and give back exactly what you want.” When Google began, you would have been pleasantly surprised to enter a search query and immediately find the right answer. Google became successful precisely because we were better and faster at finding the right answer than other search engines at the time.

But technology has come a long way since then, and the face of the web has changed. Recognizing that search is a problem that will never be solved, we continue to push the limits of existing technology to provide a fast, accurate and easy-to-use service that anyone seeking information can access, whether they’re at a desk in Boston or on a phone in Bangkok. We’ve also taken the lessons we’ve learned from search to tackle even more challenges.

As we keep looking towards the future, these core principles guide our actions.

We first wrote these “10 things” several years ago. From time to time we revisit this list to see if it still holds true. We hope it does–and you can hold us to that. (September 2009)

Focus on the user and all else will follow.
Since the beginning, we’ve focused on providing the best user experience possible. Whether we’re designing a new Internet browser or a new tweak to the look of the homepage, we take great care to ensure that they will ultimately serve you, rather than our own internal goal or bottom line. Our homepage interface is clear and simple, and pages load instantly. Placement in search results is never sold to anyone, and advertising is not only clearly marked as such, it offers relevant content and is not distracting. And when we build new tools and applications, we believe they should work so well you don‘t have to consider how they might have been designed differently.
It’s best to do one thing really, really well.
We do search. With one of the world‘s largest research groups focused exclusively on solving search problems, we know what we do well, and how we could do it better. Through continued iteration on difficult problems, we’ve been able to solve complex issues and provide continuous improvements to a service that already makes finding information a fast and seamless experience for millions of people. Our dedication to improving search helps us apply what we‘ve learned to new products, like Gmail and Google Maps. Our hope is to bring the power of search to previously unexplored areas, and to help people access and use even more of the ever-expanding information in their lives.
Fast is better than slow.
We know your time is valuable, so when you’re seeking an answer on the web you want it right away–and we aim to please. We may be the only people in the world who can say our goal is to have people leave our homepage as quickly as possible. By shaving excess bits and bytes from our pages and increasing the efficiency of our serving environment, we’ve broken our own speed records many times over, so that the average response time on a search result is a fraction of a second. We keep speed in mind with each new product we release, whether it’s a mobile application or Google Chrome, a browser designed to be fast enough for the modern web. And we continue to work on making it all go even faster.
Democracy on the web works.
Google search works because it relies on the millions of individuals posting links on websites to help determine which other sites offer content of value. We assess the importance of every web page using more than 200 signals and a variety of techniques, including our patented PageRank™ algorithm, which analyzes which sites have been “voted” to be the best sources of information by other pages across the web. As the web gets bigger, this approach actually improves, as each new site is another point of information and another vote to be counted. In the same vein, we are active in open source software development, where innovation takes place through the collective effort of many programmers.
You don’t need to be at your desk to need an answer.
The world is increasingly mobile: people want access to information wherever they are, whenever they need it. We’re pioneering new technologies and offering new solutions for mobile services that help people all over the globe to do any number of tasks on their phone, from checking email and calendar events to watching videos, not to mention the several different ways to access Google search on a phone. In addition, we’re hoping to fuel greater innovation for mobile users everywhere with Android, a free, open source mobile platform. Android brings the openness that shaped the Internet to the mobile world. Not only does Android benefit consumers, who have more choice and innovative new mobile experiences, but it opens up revenue opportunities for carriers, manufacturers and developers.
You can make money without doing evil.
Google is a business. The revenue we generate is derived from offering search technology to companies and from the sale of advertising displayed on our site and on other sites across the web. Hundreds of thousands of advertisers worldwide use AdWords to promote their products; hundreds of thousands of publishers take advantage of our AdSense program to deliver ads relevant to their site content. To ensure that we’re ultimately serving all our users (whether they are advertisers or not), we have a set of guiding principles for our advertising programs and practices:
- We don’t allow ads to be displayed on our results pages unless they are relevant where they are shown. And we firmly believe that ads can provide useful information if, and only if, they are relevant to what you wish to find–so it‘s possible that certain searches won’t lead to any ads at all.
- We believe that advertising can be effective without being flashy. We don‘t accept pop–up advertising, which interferes with your ability to see the content you’ve requested. We’ve found that text ads that are relevant to the person reading them draw much higher clickthrough rates than ads appearing randomly. Any advertiser, whether small or large, can take advantage of this highly targeted medium.
- Advertising on Google is always clearly identified as a “Sponsored Link,” so it does not compromise the integrity of our search results. We never manipulate rankings to put our partners higher in our search results and no one can buy better PageRank. Our users trust our objectivity and no short-term gain could ever justify breaching that trust.
There’s always more information out there.
Once we’d indexed more of the HTML pages on the Internet than any other search service, our engineers turned their attention to information that was not as readily accessible. Sometimes it was just a matter of integrating new databases into search, such as adding a phone number and address lookup and a business directory. Other efforts required a bit more creativity, like adding the ability to search news archives, patents, academic journals, billions of images and millions of books. And our researchers continue looking into ways to bring all the world‘s information to people seeking answers.
The need for information crosses all borders.
Our company was founded in California, but our mission is to facilitate access to information for the entire world, and in every language. To that end, we have offices in more than 60 countries, maintain more than 180 Internet domains, and serve more than half of our results to people living outside the United States. We offer Google‘s search interface in more than 130 languages, offer people the ability to restrict results to content written in their own language, and aim to provide the rest of our applications and products in as many languages and accessible formats as possible. Using our translation tools, people can discover content written on the other side of the world in languages they don‘t speak. With these tools and the help of volunteer translators, we have been able to greatly improve both the variety and quality of services we can offer in even the most far–flung corners of the globe.
You can be serious without a suit.
Our founders built Google around the idea that work should be challenging, and the challenge should be fun. We believe that great, creative things are more likely to happen with the right company culture–and that doesn‘t just mean lava lamps and rubber balls. There is an emphasis on team achievements and pride in individual accomplishments that contribute to our overall success. We put great stock in our employees–energetic, passionate people from diverse backgrounds with creative approaches to work, play and life. Our atmosphere may be casual, but as new ideas emerge in a café line, at a team meeting or at the gym, they are traded, tested and put into practice with dizzying speed–and they may be the launch pad for a new project destined for worldwide use.
Great just isn’t good enough.
We see being great at something as a starting point, not an endpoint. We set ourselves goals we know we can’t reach yet, because we know that by stretching to meet them we can get further than we expected. Through innovation and iteration, we aim to take things that work well and improve upon them in unexpected ways. For example, when one of our engineers saw that search worked well for properly spelled words, he wondered about how it handled typos. That led him to create an intuitive and more helpful spell checker.

Even if you don’t know exactly what you’re looking for, finding an answer on the web is our problem, not yours. We try to anticipate needs not yet articulated by our global audience, and meet them with products and services that set new standards. When we launched Gmail, it had more storage space than any email service available. In retrospect offering that seems obvious–but that’s because now we have new standards for email storage. Those are the kinds of changes we seek to make, and we’re always looking for new places where we can make a difference. Ultimately, our constant dissatisfaction with the way things are becomes the driving force behind everything we do.

EBC Mobile Web App Launched

Thu, 17 Mar 2011 01:23:04 -0400

EBC Mobile Web App Launched

PSFK - Future of Mobile Tagging

Wed, 16 Mar 2011 21:10:19 -0400

PSFK’s latest ‘Future Of’ report presents key trends in the mobile tagging space, so as to inspire marketers and their creative agencies about their future use of technologies that include QR codes, barcodes and Microsoft Tags in their branding activity and communication campaigns.

Mobile tags offer a unique opportunity for brands and their agencies to interact with potential and existing customers. These two dimensional barcodes can be applied to almost any surface and the information contained within them can be leveraged to create incentives and drivers that lead consumers along the purchase path.

By bridging the online-offline divide with a click of a mobile phone button, mobile tags can drive a brand or product’s awareness. In this report we look at how companies are using competitions and gaming to engage a new audience.

When a shopper scans a mobile tag, they can also gather a deeper level of information that will help them decide about the purchase of a product. Marketers are using the technology to provide an insider’s view about a brand—and they are also using the mobile tag to provide immediate status updates sent directly to a customer’s phone.

Mobile tags can support the purchase stage. Opportunities being explored by brands and their agencies include the ability to scan-to- pay and also the offering of loyalty rewards.

Beyond the purchase, marketers can use the technology to enhance customer service. For example, how-to instructions can be made easily accessible with the simple capture of a mobile tag.

Mobile tags provide an exciting opportunity to interact with customers in ways not previously available to marketers. This report shines a light on to the work of other marketers to both inspire you and present some mobile tagging options as you consider your next campaign.

http://www.psfk.com/future-of-mobile-tagging

Lee Egstrom discussing Social Media for business.

Wed, 16 Mar 2011 21:05:00 -0400

Lee Egstrom discussing Social Media for business.

"I hand business owners a cape and teach them how to fly…"

Wed, 16 Mar 2011 21:04:00 -0400

“I hand business owners a cape and teach them how to fly…”