Authors can learn a lot from the personal branding and social media marketing advice of Chris Brogan who recently offered 100 Personal Branding Tactics Using Social Media. Of course, Chris is not speaking about books in particular, but that’s the beauty of his advice – it can be applied to many different situations where your personal brand and growing online network can make a difference.

I’ve written quite a bit on the subject here as well, but with a focus on book publishing. Check out the following and the Related Posts links for some of my thoughts on how book authors can promote their work with social media.

• Why Word of Mouth Matters
• Book Marketing for Authors: The Author Questionnaire
• Crowdhacking: 10 Simple Ways Authors Can Help to Increase Sales at Amazon.com
• Amazon.com as a Social Network
• Looks Like We Are About to Get Bum Rushed by the Age of Conversation
• The Making of A Bestseller: A Case Study in The Meme

(Image credit: emdot)

Two weeks ago, Scrabble owner Hasbro sent a take down notice to Facebook.

Copyright infringement? Maybe. Big missed opportunity for Hasbro? Definitely.

Why shut Scrabulous down when there are so many other online clones out there? Hasbro probably has a case with respect to name confusion. But I think the real missed opportunity for Hasbro here was in not embracing this huge, connected, engaged (and vocal) community who loves their game.

Why not hire the the Aharwalla’s as game developers, re-brand Scrabulous as Scrabble and reap the rewards? If 2 Scrabble fans can cultivate a community base of 2.3 million voracious players, imagine what might be possible if a company like Hasbro threw their weight behind it?

Perhaps Hasbro has sold the electronic or online rights to the game to a 3rd party and now must defend that Agreement.  If so, fair enough and then this becomes a missed opportunity of another sort.

Facebook users obviously love games – they are some of the most installed and most active Facebook applications available. For a company like Hasbro, this could just be the tip of the iceberg. Imagine Battleship, Monopoly, Axis and Allies, or any number games from Hasbro’s huge portfolio as Facebook applications.

What do you think? Clear case of copyright infringement, or missed opportunity to engage fans in the social media era?

(Hat tip to Josh Quittner)

An early adopter of Twitter, I have struggled with communicating the value of tools like it for my organization – as have many others I am sure. Today I picked up on three great posts in this theme (via @jowyang on Twitter, no doubt.)

David Armano, VP of Experience Design with Critical Mass, says Twitter is a Conversation Ecosystem, and provides some great visuals that help to drive the point home.

Explaining Twitter is an act in futility unless the person you explain it to understands the intricacies of social networks (saying conversation ecosystem is a bit abstract to someone not participating in online conversations).

And that’s really the rub, isn’t it? Getting companies immersed in “classic” models to take the time to understand the new models and find value,potential, and connection.

Forrester Senior Analyst Jeremiah Owyang says the Fabric becomes stronger as the Threads connect.

If you’re in the tech industry, and in marketing, you should be paying attention to what’s happening on twitter.

Jeremiah also brings up the “what you had for lunch” argument that is often the first response to the value of tools like Twitter. (And by the way, Twitter is just one tool – my point stands for many others as well.) I simply reject this argument now, as there are some great tools to help reduce the noise and focus on conversations that are applicable.

Forrester’s Peter Kim has published a report on Twitter (registration required) that speaks to the current demographics of Twitter users, and their reactions to branding, advertising, as well as a short list of companies like Dell, JetBlue and Carnival Cruise Lines and how they are using the tool as part of their online strategy.

Six percent of online US adults use Twitter at least monthly or more frequently. Twitter users are, on average, 78% male and 31 years old, and they draw an annual income of $78,000. In comparison, members of the online US population are, on average, 49% male and 43 years old, and they draw an annual income of $68,000.

Is your company using tools like Twitter as part of its online strategy?

(Photo credit ecstaticist)

Collegaue Ellen Gerstein, who had been managing the Dummies Man Facebook profile, was recently alerted that Dummies Man was banned from using the social networking site and all evidence of him had been purged.

Your account was disabled because you violated Facebook’s Terms of Use, to which you agreed when you first registered for an account on the site. Accounts can either be disabled for repeat offenses or for one, particularly egregious violation.

Facebook does not allow users to register with fake names, to impersonate any person or entity, or to falsely state or otherwise misrepresent themselves or their affiliations.

I think this is the beginning of a very intersting discussion. We didn’t impersonate anyone – we are Dummies Man, and he was only on Facebook as a goodwill ambassador for the brand. As Ellen says,

Over the months since, Dummies Man has been friending people, commenting on profiles and fan pages, and benignly exploring the site. It wasn’t a huge organized marketing campaign, more a way for us to dip a toe of the brand into the social networking waters.

Perhaps the profile could be considered as advertising a product, which may be the rub. I wonder if this precludes other well-known brand ambassadors from having identities on Facebook? I see that the Michelin Man has a page. I wonder if Disney approached Zuckerberg about a Mickey Mouse profile what the response would be.

What do you think? Should brands be allowed to have Facebook profiles?

Recently, I have also been doing some social networking in an “unofficial” capacity as a representative of one of our brands, Wrox. Primarily this experimentation is on a Wrox Facebook Group I started, and in a Wrox Twitter feed. These identities are Wrox branded, and the conversations I have are Wrox-centric. So far the growth rate of followers/members is slow, but it is picking up. I have to say that I am pleased with the results in such a short period of time as I have been able to make connections to some programmers I might not have been able to reach as easily otherwise, and it looks like I may have found some new authors and technical editors.

At some point, we will figure out what the message is we want to send to Wrox readers via these channels, but for now the important thing is that we are a part of the conversation.

I like to think that I am keeping my personal brand and my company’s brand separate, but since I am discussing both here that might not be entirely true. There is certainly often a far amount of overlap between the two, and I am not “hiding” the fact that I participate in conversations as the Wrox brand. I certainly represent the brand often at trade shows, and in conversations with partners, customers and authors.

But I wonder if keeping the social application identities separate is the right thing to do. Robert Scoble didn’t really try to do that – he is just Scobleizer. On the other hand, I don’t represent my company on this blog, my personal Twitter feed, or my Facebook Profile.

So, I wonder – is having both disingenuous, or do each serve a purpose? What do you think?