I had the pleasure of attending last weeks Women in Technology Sales and Marketing event entitled, Enabling the Channel Insights from Leading OEMs and Distributors. The featured speakers included (from left to right):Theresa Caragol
, Vice President, Global Alliances & Partners, CienaLiz Anthony
, Public Sector Channel Marketing Manager, CiscoLynne Corddry
, Vice President, Business Development, Public Sector, Red Hat, Inc.Amy Styers
, Account Executive, DLT Solutions
Moderators Christine Schaefer
from DLT Solutions
and Mary Conley Eggert
from Tech Image
asked a series of great questions, which are detailed below:Q: How do you make sure that the entire channel works as cohesive unit?
Theresa: You must be clear about your strategy. Identify key geographic or vertical markets, then pick the best partners that will help you penetrate that market. Focus on quality not quantity.
Lynne: It's important to integrate with your most important channel partners. Red Hat shares a CRM tool and has monthly forecast meeting with partners DLT and Carahsoft. It is also important to celebrate together when big wins close.Q: Whats the biggest mistake channel partners make?
Liz: Small channel partners should focus on a specific set of solutions or markets rather than try to do everything.
Lynne: Its critical that channel partners measure and demonstrate success to their manufacturer partners.
Theresa: Channel partners need to bring new opportunities to the table, not undercut existing channel partners. Channel partners should shy away from blaming the manufacturer; instead they should focus on service and try their best to solve the customers problem.Q: Whats the best way to handle complexity in the channel?
Liz: Throwing more bodies at it isnt the answer. Manufacturers should simplify their message and train, train, train their channel partners.Q: How can channel partners differentiate themselves?
Theresa: The worst thing a channel partner can do is just resell a box. The most successful channel partners bundle multiple technologies into an overall solution or add services to the offering.
Lynne: Being a small, disadvantaged business is not enough. She looks for partners that can help differentiate Red Hat from their competitors.
Amy: As a channel partner, DLT differentiates itself by offering contract vehicle access, business development, lead generation and relationships with system integrators.
Liz: Look for thought leadership opportunities to demonstrate expertise and credibility. Q: How easy is it to work with a manufacturer to get a proof of concept?
Lynne: Red Hat is very open to proof of concepts and pilot programs and encourages developers to build solutions on top of the Red Hat Linux platform.
Theresa: Ciena also looks for companies to do joint development. They have a formal program and process to bring companies into their Innovation Lab.Q: What level of commitment are you looking for from your channel partners?
Theresa: In an ideal world, Ciena looks for self-sufficiency. She mentioned the fax machine business, referring to partners that can sell and close business independently and then send in the order. However, channel partners can also offer value through introductions or relationships.
Lynne: The important factor is how many people are trained on Red Hats technology.
Liz: Channel partners need to put some skin in the game. Everyone wants Cisco to help them market their solution, but channel partners must be able to market and sell their solution on their own if theyre going to be successful.Q: How do manufacturers and channel partners deal with competition?
Lynne: Red Hat only works with partners that dont sell a competitive solution.
Theresa: Ciena hasnt always been in a position to ask for exclusivity. Instead, they agree on set of customers, verticals or specific sales people that wont be shared with their competitors. Deal registration also helps to build trust with vendors, and then partners know they wont be undercut.
Amy: On the flip side, DLT asks for exclusivity with small manufacturer partners.
Christine, also from DLT, pointed out that Amy gets 400 calls a year from people who want to partner with DLT, and DLT only represents 40.
Liz: Cisco doesnt always have exclusive relationships either, but they use marketing funds to reward committed partners and earn channel attention.
Thanks to the WIT team for organizing such a strong event, and to Google for hosting.
-- Katie Hanusik
Oh no. I'm guilty of some of these overused business phrases. What's even funnier, however, is when I heard someone misuse and misspell the overused phrases...what does THAT signify?
When I was growing up, owning a business meant something.
If you wanted to open an eyeglasses store, for instance, you had to have a business plan, a bank loan, real estate, a supply chain, a marketing strategy, a staff, and the list goes on and on.
Even then, about 98% of the ventures would tank within a year. The true survivors had proven something commendable. They were, quite literally, in business.
Today, all you need is an Internet connection, a $20 website template, and a knack for getting attention.
Internet commerce created a nearly endless supply of business owners.
In the digital world, there are few barriers to entry. There is little if any regulatory authority. And even the grossly incompetent can survive and prosper.
In the words of now infamous e-entrepreneur Vitaly Borker: There is no such thing as shutting someone down on the Internet.
Im pulling, of course, from David Segals rollicking portrait of Borker in Fridays New York Times, which investigates a hypothetical link between shady e-commerce practices, deplorable customer hostility, and better online sales.
Personally, I'm less interested in the technical mechanisms at work than in the buyer psychology.
Is it true that Google rewards positive and negative buzz indistinguishably? Probably. But I wouldnt deem this a failure on Googles part.
Google is a tool. Nothing more. It has no new information to impart. It can only aggregate and parrot back what it's been given.
So if we abdicate our responsibility, our critical faculties, our common senseopting instead to trust the first link we see or the most popular meme du jourwere the responsible parties.
And if were selecting vendors based solely on price to resell a communal pool of merchandise, we're responsible for fueling low margin, low service operations, and maybe even some counterfeiting.
Today's endless feedback loop means more than just convenience. It means were ultimately responsible for our own information.
It's the same struggle in modern journalism. The masses have been empowered, the authorities marginalized. The most important stories today are those the public deems most important. Hence, more coverage of the TSA pat-down controversy, and less coverage of a burgeoning second Korean War.
Its all wonderful in principal, just like unfettered capitalism. But if we dont trust our duly elected government as a regulatory authority, why should we trust an unaudited, profit-minded company like Google?
We shouldnt, I would argue. And yet without a trusted arbitrator, legitimate small businesses will have an even greater struggle online than off.
Bad apples like Borker will forever spoil the orchard for the rest of the Mom and Pops. And goliath web-based companies like Amazon will replace the old goliath brick and mortars.
Unless we seize responsibility for ourselves, online.
It happens all the time, when you least expect it – the dreaded grammar mistake. We’ve all done it. Writing too quickly we misspell a word, leave out an apostrophe or incorrectly pluralize words.
Working with the media as closely as we do, we love to find mistakes and take internal editing seriously to prevent ourselves from falling victim to these errors in front of clients or the press. However, they can still sneak through. To continue to help prevent some common mistakes The Oatmeal pulled together a funny (and slightly off-color) list of 10 Words You Need to Stop Misspelling.
In a world where we’re constantly communicating in short form via email (at our desks or on our phones), IM and text, lots of rules get thrown out the window. I’ve seen emails with no capitalization, missing punctuation and misspelled words. Memorizing a few of these rules can help us all to look more professional in our written communication – whether it’s a quick email or longer writing project.
– Ali Smith
As networks continue to block Google TV’s
web browser from viewing its content, does the system have a chance of succeeding? Viacom, which owns MTV, VH1 and Nickelodeon among others, has just joined the growing list
of networks including FOX, ABC, NBC and CBS that will block the Internet television from streaming its content. With this latest decision to block, Google TV is left with the support of very few major networks.
While networks agree that Google TV may be the wave of the future, many are skeptical to commit right now based on a few factors, but primarily from the potential decline in TV advertising if the content is streamed via the web. The main issue is that networks want viewers to watch their TV channels on a TV set and their online streaming episodes from a computer. Once you hook a computer to a TV set and try to access the networks' web sites, which is basically what Google TV does, the networks get uncomfortable. The primary way networks make money is through TV advertising and if everyone is viewing their content online with their TV, the ratings for shows go dramatically down and thus, so does the TV advertising.
Another issue networks are having with Google TV is it does not do a good enough job of blocking out pirated content, and people will now have the ability to watch it on a large screen. Currently, in a standard Google search for something to watch, it will return a wide variety of illegitimate TV shows and movies from domestic and off-shore websites that host pirated material. Networks want Google to filter out these websites that infringe on copyrights before they are comfortable providing easy access through their own websites.
While Google TV seems to have the capabilities in place, it does not have the support needed for the platform to really get off the ground.
Google TV is trying to tell people that they are not aiming for customers to cut their cable; rather they want people to use Google TV’s capabilities in addition to traditional cable as opposed to instead of. What Google needs to do is get the networks to sign on with some kind of compensation through a licensing agreement or find a way to make advertising work so that everyone is seeing the benefits.
Google TV may be the future of what is to come in television but until the kinks are worked out you might be better off watching TV while your laptop is in hand for now.
If youre ever questioning the power of online communities, social networking and blogging, look no further than the public uproar surrounding TSA.
Its the perfect storm recent security threats involving cargo planes, a passionate group of protestors taking to the Internet and to the airports to complain, and the media hungry for a different Thanksgiving travel catastrophe angle that doesnt involve Doppler
radar. Adding to that, on the busiest travel day of the year, travelers began a TSA Opt-Out campaign to boycott advanced security and screenings. The U.S. Travel Association
has even started an online forum
and Facebook page
for travelers to voice their concerns to the Administration about the screenings.
As discontent over the TSAs handling of the new screening process
grew from day to day, one could say the TSA seemed to miss an opportunity to use social media to really listen and respond to what travelers are saying online. Twitter
and blogs seem to be the most popular outposts for TSA bashing and I wouldnt expect anything less from the legions of plugged-in, digital travel warriors across the country. For example, TechCrunch has a running list
of some of the best TSA-related tweets and Foursquare jumped in on the hype with a new TSA badge
While all this was going on, the TSA's social media strategy centered around the TSA Blog
and the TSA Twitter feed.
Both pages seem to be managed by one guy, Blogger Bob, who surely must be using a coffee IV drip at this point to keep up with his duties. Recent blog posts contain canned responses to recent screening incidents that come off as obligatory; it's as if they're checking a box instead of really taking a hard look at how the TSA could improve its communication with the public. To add more insult, Blogger Bob takes a rather jaunty approach to travel tips as seen on the blog and @TSABlogTeam
|What, tofurkeys can't get any love this year?|
|Pilgrim humor does in fact get old. |
All jokes aside, I'm sure Blogger Bob needs a healthy dose of humor to get through the day because it's probably not the easiest job. However, a little more attention to the real world concerns of travelers would go a long way in my opinion to counter the bad PR that TSA is getting. They could start with pulling in more digital media specialists and crisis communication experts to manage their social media and stay on top of emerging issues.
It's possible that this might all die down after the weekend, but I'm curious if any of you have seen or experienced the effects of the new screenings? Safe travels out there and if you are flying leave the cornucopia displays at home!--Pheniece
In case you hadnt heard: Content is king. The coronation happened sometime during the summer of 2007. You were in the bathroom.
See, before the reign of content, the Internet was just a mass of disparate, warring tribes. Sci-fi fans, defense analysts, and pornography enthusiasts.
But when content came along (that is to say: free, unlimited content), it united us all beneath a common bannerthe infojunkie.
We morphed, against our wills, into a ravenous band of information addicts, perpetually unsated, demanding free, uninterrupted flows of intellectual property as a prerequisite for purchasing
So, naturally, marketers panicked. They started banging out content. Something, anything to keep the conversation going, the deal closing, the keys jingling.
And that, in a nutshell, is why the Internet's filled with crap.
It gets worse:
Content became a business in and of itself. Farms like Demand Media and Answers.com began literally repackaging search queries as articles, mostly in the format of a furniture assembly instruction manual. (For a great exposé on this very issue, check out Jessanne Collins
It wasnt always like this.
Before the deluge, churning out content was a fairly clever strategy. The psychology is sound: If a company's willing to give away something for free, it must have something eminently more valuable hidden behind the pay wall, right?
But today, in our content-saturated digital snow globe, more information isnt necessarily helping anyone.
With an infinite array of channels and information streams, durable content has to be distinct, more than anything else.
If I can get the same content at sites X, Y, and Z, its a failure for all three, because theres no differentiation for the user, and hence no brand loyalty.
Thats why cultivating a voice is so important. Being genuine. Exhibiting not just what
you think, but how
And it starts with good faith efforts to improve the content experience for everyone involved.
In short, we need to stop gaming the system. Content for contents sake is like black hat SEO tactics; its destructive. The point of SEO isnt to get better search rankings for your client. Its to get better search rankings for your client's relevant content
So my advice is to start with this simple premise: You are what you post. If you're smart, make sure your content reflects it. If you're progressive, post progressively.
Be you. Be distinct. Build a brand and a content library that reflects what you, uniquely, have to offer. Provide clear, segmented pathways to your differentiated voice. Resist the temptation to piggyback or to mimic.
Take the time to do it well. Or don't do it.
Everyone has heard the reports
that traditional newspapers are dying and people are moving to an online format which provides instant, breaking updates anytime of day. Newspaper industry legend and News Corp. CEO, Rupert Murdoch, and Apple CEO Steve Jobs, however, have a different idea for where the newspaper industry is heading, with their plan for an iPad-only newspaper.
Murdoch has said he believes the iPad to be a “game changer
” and a potential savior to the newspaper industry ever since he read studies that demonstrated people were more engaged with content on their tablet devices than either traditional newspaper or the web. To help make his iPad newspaper, "The Daily"
, a reality Murdoch has a total of $30 million in seed money and an estimated staff of 100. Apple engineers are helping out by specially formatting The Daily with rich content, photos and videos to deliver a top-notch experience.
The paper will provide a few breaking updates, but for the most part it will be published in the morning like a traditional newspaper and will remain as is. The Daily already possesses a few hires from the mainstream media, including Sasha Frere-Jones, the music critic of The New Yorker, Steve Alperin, a high-profile television producer; and Richard Johnson, former editor for Page Six, and will incorporate some material from the rest of the news corporation – such as videos from Fox Sports, but for the most part it will develop original content.
Will The Daily take off as the future of how you receive your daily news? It seems to me that if I had an iPad, I would use it to browse online news as opposed to paying for an iPad newspaper. The Daily application is going to sell for a seemingly reasonable $.99 a week, which may help it succeed, along with the fact that people are already used to paying for content on their iPads. What also will help encourage purchasing is that The Daily will live entirely in app form and not be searchable through the web at all.
With an expected launch date of early 2011, will you purchase the app, or stick with your current way of reading news?
If you haven’t had it happen yet, you will – you line your client up for what you think is a great media opportunity and it turns into a death spiral. Maybe the journalist or your client is having a bad day or perhaps they’re just not “clicking,” but for some reason or another, what was supposed to be a run-of-the-mill conversation suddenly turns into a hostile interview from hell.
So what do you, as the PR pro and supposed moderator of the call, actually do in this situation?
- Calm It Down
I’m normally not a fan of butting in on interviews – ever. Our job is to pique journalist interest, prep the executive/representative for the interview and set up the logistics for the call. Other than that, we need to let our client speak for him or herself…however, if the situation escalates to something hostile, it’s time for us to assert ourselves. Ideally, the whole incident will just be a misunderstanding or a poorly phrased statement – as a third-party observer, step in quickly, point out the error or the true meaning of the phrase, ensure that cooler heads prevail, then step back out.
If that fails…
- Put The Foot Down
While it’s important to maintain a good relationship with the journalist, you do need to take care of your client first and foremost. If you can’t defuse the situation calmly, then take matters into your own hands. Without being a jerk, you need to explain to the journalist (and to your client) that this needs to remain a civil conversation – if your client cannot/will not continue down a certain line of questioning, you need to inform the journalist of this clearly. You are now the moderator and it is vital that you remain calm throughout the whole situation. If things get worse, however…
- Kill the Call
This is essentially the “nuke” of the PR arsenal – at most firms, the PR pro will act as the leader for any conference call. If things simply become too heated, just kill the call. This is decidedly a last resort – if the journalist remains angry or holds a grudge, look forward to more contentious interviews in the future (if he/she will even take your communications) and possibly an article that puts your client in a negative light. But it keeps the lines (at least somewhat) open and prevents a bad situation from getting even worse.
After that? Call your client – get their perspective on what happened and share your own. Decide if you’ll pitch that journalist again and, if they are interested, how the interviews should take place – in-person, phone or via email. Finally, connect with the journalist – explain why you did what you did and that if they have any further questions, please send them along via email. Don’t apologize – you did what you had to do for the client.
Do you have any horror stories of your own?
Let me know!
In a field where the root of your work comes down to putting words together in meaningful and creative ways, you can imagine that we get pretty excited when new words become real.
For the past few years the words of the year have been tech terms that weve been using here at SBX for a while (ex: unfriend and tweet 2009). This year however, they are words weve heard, maybe used and potentially have laughed at.
And the new word / word of the year honorees for 2010 are:
· Refudiate this Oxford English Dictionary word of the year comes to us courtesy of a Sarah Palin tweet. Obviously, this was a misspeak since this word did not exist in the dictionary until now. It was first thought that refudiate was an accidental mix of refute or repudiate but neither seems to make sense in the contexts that Palin has used the word, deeming it a new word and warranting it its own spot in the dictionary. Nominations for the word of the year are based on a number of criteria, including the amount of attention the word has received over the previous year and whether its usage has grown. Other nominees for 2010 were: retweet, webisode, crowdsourcing, gleek and nom nom. · Spillcam Global Language Monitors word of 2010 was on the news 24/7 for months as we watched oil flow into the gulf through a grainy underwater video feeds. GLMs top ten words for 2010 followed pop culture closely with vuvuzela at number two, guido and guidette at number five and snowmagedden/snowpocalypse at number seven.
Some of the words added to the dictionary in the past are used daily here but, in my opinion, I hope these two words dont stick around too long
One, because its a bit of a joke, and the other, because I cant wish for another situation where we watch oil gush into a waterway.
, in an Associated Content article compares Palins refudiate to Stephen Colberts truthiness (which took the top spot in 2005) and the different contexts in which the politically fueled words are used. In it he says, Perhaps refudiate won't have as long of a shelf life as truthiness, as it may just go down as fodder for Palin jokes. Yet she, like Colbert before her, has found a way to change the English language and put a new spin on existing words.
As for refudiate and spillcam, enjoy them while you can and hopefully well have more positive words to celebrate next year.
I was proud to serve as a judge in this year's WWPR Woman of the Year event
, where three honorees were recognized for outstanding leadership and contribution to the PR profession.The event was held yesterday at the Mandarin Oriental hotel, with Dee Dee Myers
delivering a powerful keynote address
. Debra Silimeo
, Senior Vice President for Hager Sharp, was awarded the prestigious 2010 Woman of the Year award and delivered a passionate speech about the team at Hager Sharp and how its culture has shaped who she has become.
Two other very impressive women were also recognized as honorees: Donna Vincent Roa,
PhD, ABC, CSR-P, Managing Partner & Chief Strategist, Vincent Roa Group LLC; and Johanna Schneider
, Executive Director-External Relations, Business Roundtable. They both presented their own unique remarks about their journey, their life lessons and inspirations.
WWPR consistently raises the bar with its Woman of the Year award program, and it's the one event I haven't missed in nearly ten years! A raffle was held to benefit WWPRs pro bono client, the Childrenʹs Law Center,
the largest legal services organization in the District and the only organization that provides comprehensive free legal representation specifically for children who have been abused and neglected, have special education or health care needs.
One of my personal highlights was to meet and spend 20 minutes talking to Dee Dee Myers. She served as White House Press Secretary for two years under the Clinton administration and holds the title as the first woman and second youngest to hold that position.
She graduated from my alma mater, Santa Clara University
, a quiet liberal arts school in the heart of Silicon Valley, so I've followed her career for years. Her first book, Why Women Should Rule the World
went on to become a New York Times
bestseller and her remarks mirrored her perspectives shared in the book. Her mantra isn't really about why women should take over the world, but rather, how women should assert themselves alongside men to make the world a better place. Her delivery is sharp, funny, and interjected with dry humor.
She was the inspiration for the character C.J. Cregg
, press secretary on West Wing
played by Allison Janney. She consulted for much of the show as a contributing writer. She joked in her remarks that she enjoyed incorporating true examples of her experiences, but in the show she could take liberties to change the ending. Hilarious.
Afterward, a couple of board members and I spent time talking to Myers, so I had to snap a photo!
|Dee Dee Myers and Elizabeth Shea|
If you think you have a PR professional in mind who is a candidate for the 2011 Woman of the Year, mark your calendars! Look for nomination opportunities next summer.- Elizabeth Shea (@eliz2shea)
Is there a lingering Associated Press
(AP) style question that has always been in the back of your mind, or maybe even a disagreement with a current entry? If youre like me, you probably have a handful of grammar questions that youve always wondered about and have been forced to guess answers to. Dont get me wrong my AP Stylebook saves my life about once a day, but just like most other reference tools, the communication world is constantly evolving and growing, making it hard for AP to keep up and solve every style conundrum.
So for those of you who have a style question that youd like to see answered and included in the 2011 edition, nows your chance to speak up! The AP is looking for entry suggestions for next year. Simply fill out this form
and you could see your own inquiry published in the spring edition! Authors of the editors favorite submissions will be given either a free year's subscription to AP Stylebook Online or a free AP Stylebook mobile application download for iPhone or iPod touch.
Submissions are due Monday, November 15, so get typing!
- Mary Evans
At the Public Relations Society of America International Conference
in DC a few weeks ago, a focus group evaluated the Barcelona Principles, a set of metrics that are being developed for practitioners to measure the value of public relations. Created this past summer by over 200 people from more than 30 countries, the Barcelona Principles
address the need for clear standards and common approaches to measuring and evaluating public relations results.
The Barcelona Principles consist of seven ideas -
1. Goal-setting and measurement are important.
2. Measuring the effect on outcomes is preferred to measuring outputs.
3. The effect on business result can and should be measured where possible.
4. Media measurement requires quantity and quality.
5. Advertising Value Equivalency (AVEs) are not the value of public relations.
6. Social media can and should be measured.
7. Transparency and replicability are paramount to sound measurement.
Of all of these principles, the one that seemed to generate the most attention
(and relief from PR people) at the focus group was that AVEs do not show the value of public relations. For years people have tried to tie public relations to advertising dollars when in actuality it cannot be measured in that way. With the inclusion of this principle, PR professionals are hoping to move forward from this outdated measurement standard and develop a method that measures organizational impact.
So, is the PR industry ready for a set of global measurement standards? Well, many of these principles are already being done and some such as goal-setting, seem to be common sense to most. What the principles boil down to is they provide a good base for measurement across the board and allow PR to be measured in a way that is relevant and modern. No longer will PR be measured by the number of pitches that are sent out, but rather on results that are able to impact the business.
If you want to learn more about these new measurements and how to implement them, the PRSA is hosting a free webinar
on the topic on Wednesday, November 17.
While we missed the actual seminar (it can still be purchased here), the good folks at Poynter live blogged the event and even streamed some of the sessions. Presenters that are asked their point of view on the future of journalism include: Matt Thompson from NPR, Vadim Lavrusik from Mashable, Ellyn Angelotti from Poynter, Charlene Li from Altimeter Group, Mónica Guzmán Preston from Intersect, Betsy Morgan, formerly of Huffington Post and various thought leaders in social media.
· Lisa Stone, co-founder and CEO of BlogHer, said that BlogHer did a study with Neilsen to learn more about what women in social media are doing. They found that the majority of people online are women and they control 83 percent of household spending! 56 million women a month are reading blogs, they found.
· According to Stone, blogging is all about trust. Women who use social media trust every social media source more than they trust traditional media source. Women who only use traditional media trust traditional media more. "We are finding that increasingly, women don't trust journalists, politicians, bankers, teachers. They trust women like me," she said.
· Jim Spanfeller, president & CEO, The Spanfeller Media Group and former CEO, Forbes.com, was asked what advice he would give more traditional journalists in this world of the neverending story, self-directed media and constant feedback. His response (according to the Poynter liveblog): “I think there'll be more journalists, not less journalists, in the future. I think we hit a dark period that we're coming out of. There's more people than ever coming out of journalism school. But increasingly, journalists are going to have to be specialized. Real-time feedback also encompasses staying on top of what's actually happening. Today, the value of the scoop is gone. It's de minimus. There's very little value in breaking news. Online, as soon as a story's out, seconds later, it's bouncing around the Web. How do you add value in that environment?”
· Spanfeller: [The future of journalism is…] “Enormously exciting. All of this, as we said, is complex and intense, but fascinating and fun. The one thing that could be a stumbling block for all these conversations is privacy. If you believe, as I do, that user control over their data is a larger and larger component of the experience. If you ask folks, it turns out they'll give you their data. But if you begin scraping people's data, we're going to run into a huge backlash. And we need to decide as an industry how we're going to handle that.” (according to the Poynter liveblog)
– Ali Smith
SpeakerBox is often asked for referrals on conferences to attend and we're giving this Friday's GrowSmartBiz
the thumbs up. If you're growing a small business, this one's for you. The conference, hosted by Network Solutions
, The Washington Business Journal
boasts 4 tracks with sessions on marketing and innovation, small business, government and non-profits, technology tools and entrepreneurship. Some of the presenters to look forward to include Raul Fernandez, Vice Chair of Object Video
, Jason Falls of socialmediaexplorer.com
, Jill Foster of LiveYourTalk.com
and Katya Andresen, COO of Network for Good
. Another source of appeal is the price. $79 is a deal for a full day of content. If you go, look for me, I'd love to say hello.
- Lisa Throckmorton