Should B2B Marketing Be More Visual?

This post is inspired by the success of Instagram. It proves, once again, the impact of visual media on the human experience.

We can trace that experience from the primitive cave paintings at Lascaux, through religious iconography over the centuries and ultimately to digital representations of images, graphic elements, symbols, and so forth. Witness the success of Internet-based platforms such as Flickr, Photobucket and YouTube. One could argue that the genesis of social media platforms such as Facebook was, simply, social interaction around a photograph. Pinterest enables one less click to interact with an image and focuses on grouping disparate visual elements to generate new sensibilities.

Fresh business models around photographs continue to appear and will do so as long as humans are captivated by images. It's a universal way of communicating ' you don't need to read or write a particular language to feel an impact or receive a message. Indeed, one doesn't even need to be literate.

Marketing has always embraced visual elements, but the information technology revolution has opened a new universe of creative possibilities and distribution channels. We see this constantly; and in fact, we cannot escape it. Business-to-consumer (B2C) firms have led the way in the use of images and visual channels (e.g., YouTube, Tumblr, Pinterest) to underpin marketing strategies.

To drive home the point: We are very fond of the powerful infographic on this page.

Business-to-business (B2B) firms are catching up. Company blogs with emotive images are one way of reinforcing key messages. In the last few years, we've also seen an increasing use of video to capture and hold the interest of prospects. This trend correlates to shorter attention spans and the declining efficacy of textual content in an era of information overload. This is especially true for a generation tuned to video games and television at the expense of books and newspapers.

Brand creation and reinforcement ' as opposed to messages about specific products ' may be the most important use of images in the B2B world. You should use the aforementioned platforms to get back to basics: Building enduring relationships with prospects by enabling and promoting social interactions around images ' just as Facebook did with photographs at the beginning. Your goal is to be on the shortlist BEFORE someone shops for a product or service.

Images must of course be compelling. The art and science of aesthetics and positive emotions (especially compulsion) is itself a complicated subject as evidenced by the number of books and blogs on that topic. Regardless of your 'secret sauce', remember that the context of an image is equally important as the image itself. Poor usage can negate the effect of a powerful image.

We're particularly impressed with B2B companies which use video-based case studies of existing customers. Written case studies will never go away, but there is no doubt about the extraordinary impact of seeing and listening to real customers talk about their success with a vendor's products or services. Video images remove abstraction and bring a sense of immediacy to the viewer. This fosters trust, although the effect may be subtle. Many large B2B companies use this technique, but Cisco seems to stand out as a pioneer and leader in this area.

If you're a B2B marketer and not thinking about these things, please begin immediately. You may gain a competitive advantage. Regardless of what you do now, your serious competitors will soon be fully immersed in 'image battles'; and the minimum commitment for competitive parity will be larger than it is today.

Shareholders Strike Back

Shareholders have better tools to evaluate and link pay and performance.

Shareholder actions are rattling US boardrooms in 2012, not only indicating some of investors' greatest concerns but also pressuring directors into making changes on a number of significant fronts.

Since the proxy season began, shareholders have flexed their muscles and gained influence at major corporations in a number of different ways.

Behind-the-scenes talks with public service workers' union AFSCME persuaded Goldman Sachs to adjust its board structure in March by promoting John Bryan from presiding director to lead director, a major concession from the iconic investment bank.

While it is not the best practice of separating the role of board chairman and CEO that governance advocates prefer, most have conceded that Goldman's move is 'a step in the right direction', including AFSCME president Gerald McEntee. Lloyd Blankfein remains Goldman's CEO and chairman and will be evaluated by new lead director Bryan.

But perhaps the biggest development this year has been Citigroup shareholders' negative say-on-pay vote rejecting CEO Vikram Pandit's pay package in April. According to news reports, Citi's compensation plan received only 45 percent of the vote, the first time a major bank has had its pay plan rejected by investors.

Citigroup must now decide what to do about investors sending the message that management's compensation has not been properly aligned with company performance. Since the say-on-pay vote is non-binding, Citigroup could simply ignore it and allow Pandit to keep the $15 million he has already been paid for 2011. That option, however, would prolong a public relations disaster for the embattled bank and almost certainly ignite additional investor lawsuits to the one filed by Stanley Moskal seeking damages that would recoup some or all of Pandit's compensation. Analysts suggest that a series of lawsuits will force a financial settlement of some sort and adjustments to how long-term compensation is measured at the bank.

For those in governance circles, the development at Citigroup could represent a major shift in how shareholders will deal with boards in the future.

The significance of Citigroup

'The significance of the say-on-pay vote at Citigroup is that shareholders are no longer going to stand for poorly structured pay packages that unfairly enrich executives at the expense of shareholders,' says CalSTRS director of corporate governance Anne Sheehan. 'Given that this was the first year financial companies were out from under the purview of the pay czar since the financial crisis, it is the first opportunity shareholders have been given to judge these pay packages.'

Sheehan says the Citigroup board missed the mark in a number of areas. She points out that Pandit was only making $985,000 prior to receiving bailout funds from the US government, yet his base salary jumped to $1.75 million last year after he received a salary of $1 in 2009 and 2010 while under the government's pay czar.

She also notes that bonuses paid were 70 percent discretionary and not tied to any performance requirements. The small percentage (30 percent) that was tied to performance was a simple absolute hurdle (not a peer comparison) of achieving pre-tax net income of over $12 billion. Pandit received a bonus under this structure despite Citigroup's abysmal -44.3 percent one-year return. In fact, Citigroup's long-term performance of -44.6 percent over the past five years is one of the lowest in its peer group.

'What Citigroup shareholders seem to have said in respect to Vikram Pandit's pay package was that there were real issues there in terms of what the metrics were and the alignment of pay with long-term performance,' says Damon Silvers, associate general counsel for the AFL-CIO. 'It is unquestionably a positive thing for the advisory say-on-pay process to not be a rubber stamp ' and I think it is clear from the Citigroup vote that it is not a rubber stamp. Institutional investors are taking it seriously and looking closely at pay packages.'
 
Compensation issues at the fore

Robin Ferracone, executive chair of executive compensation firm Farient Advisors, says pay will always be at the top of shareholders' list of concerns, which is why it is the area where they seem to have made the first major breakthrough in their many clashes with boards.

'Now that they've had a year of say on pay under their belt and this is the second year they are doing it, they've gotten smarter about it,' says Ferracone.

She notes that there are several important differences in how shareholders are addressing compensation plans this year. First, shareholders are reassessing the 'peer group' they compare the company against for pay fairness and competitiveness. Last year most shareholder groups used 'peer group' as defined by proxy advisory firms ISS and Glass Lewis; 'This year they are saying, Let's see how they do against the company-defined peer group,' Ferracone explains.

She adds that her firm and Equilar have tools that allow you to 'see how your pay is stacking up relative to your selected peer group or a peer group that we would choose for you ' not one that ISS chooses for you.'

The second big difference this year, according to Ferracone, is that companies are taking a forward look at this year's compensation, not just evaluating the past year's pay. 'It's one thing to say, How did I pay for performance and how did that look in the past year?' she explains. 'It's quite another to say, How is this going to look when the pay plan that we've put in place plays out over the next couple of years?' The third major difference in evaluating pay packages this year involves how equity grants, which are the biggest pieces of the executive pay packages, are evaluated.

Ferracone says investors are looking 'at what the grants you made two or three years ago, or five years ago, are worth today, and whether or not pay is in fact linking to performance ' not what you said the grants were going to be worth on the day of the award, but what the expected value is now.'

Ferracone, who authored the study Say on pay: identifying investor concerns in cooperation with the Council of Institutional Investors, believes these evaluation concepts ' determining peer group based on business model more than just size, taking a forward rather than just a backward look at pay, and using performance-adjusted equity values rather than grant date values ' are here to stay. 'Investors didn't have the tools to assess those things before, but now they do,' she says.

Ongoing battles with boards

After compensation issues, perhaps the next biggest area of concern for shareholders is board accountability. Shareholders would love to be on the same page as company directors, but they also want some way to get things moving back to what they consider their best interests when plans go awry.

'If a board is truly representing its shareholders, it will implement properly constructed pay packages; it will implement proposals that are passed by a majority of shareholders; it will build governance structures that suitably align shareholders and the company, such as majority vote, declassified boards and one-share-one-vote standards; and lastly it will engage shareholders when necessary to seek their input,' Sheehan says.

Silvers says the AFL-CIO and worker pension funds continue to be focused on strengthening boards, strengthening the audit process and addressing issues of systemic risk in the financial system. 'These are some of the major themes of our concerns in the year to come,' he states.

Neil Hennessy, portfolio manager and chief investment officer of publicly traded mutual fund company Hennessy Funds, says he deals with shareholder concerns all the time because he must distinguish his business from all the other funds institutional investors can purchase. One thing he believes hasn't changed this year is that the companies that engage their shareholders in the right way will generally have fewer problems. In fact, he has no voicemail at his company because he wants his entire staff interacting with investors.

'I want my CFO, my CCO, my controller ' I want everybody answering shareholder questions because the shareholders are the ones who are paying us,' says Hennessy, who runs nine no-load mutual funds. 'And I don't want my people saying I don't need to know how the money is managed or I don't need to talk to shareholders. I want everybody to understand the frustrations of our shareholders as well as their successes.'

Many more boards are likely to follow that way of thinking in the near future.
 
Shareholder concerns for 2012

Damon Silvers, associate general counsel for the AFL-CIO, recently spoke to Corporate Secretary editor Matthew Scott about shareholder actions and concerns for the current proxy season.

Is Citigroup's negative say-on-pay vote a positive development for investors?

It is unquestionably a positive thing ' from the perspective of worker pension funds that are long-term investors and investors who are broadly diversified across the economy, we hope that Citigroup will understand the vote to be a vote that encourages executive pay packages that have robust metrics behind them, and not a vote to force Citi to pay out cash to shareholders and weaken the company's capital structure.

There were some people who were unhappy with Vikram Pandit because he was unable to pay a larger dividend. There isn't a pension fund in the country that would be benefitted by weakening Citi's capital structure. It is not in the interests of diversified long-term investors to see that happen.

What are shareholders' greatest concerns, and why?

Many institutional investors are still seeking some greater level of explanation as to what happened in the financial sector during the economic crisis, which did so much damage to investors. In addition, a lot of institutional investors are very focused on how we're going to get sustained economic growth on a global basis, without which it is going to be very difficult for anyone to make any money.

I think institutional investors are very wary of being asked to pay alpha prices for beta investment performance, or being asked to leverage beta investment performance ' and these things are all tied up with one another.
There have been some substantial improvements on the governance front, partly as a result of Dodd-Frank and partly as a result of the growing popularity of good governance measures such as separating the chair and CEO, but there is a lot of ground to cover.

The rule-making process for Dodd-Frank is only half-done, and the SEC has a lot of work in front of it. Investors want to be operating in a market environment that is more soundly structured than the market environment prior to the crash and the crisis of 2008. All of those things are in play in Washington right now.

How do you achieve a sounder market environment ' through regulation, or through shareholder actions?

I think they complement each other. Corporate governance activism requires a legal structure that gives investors usable rights, and there are certain things that investors need very badly that they cannot achieve through governance ' for example, a stable banking system. Private ordering among the capital structure of banks is just not likely to produce that outcome by itself.

Is shareholder activism concentrated in the financial sector, or do you believe it's broader?

There is a lot of investor focus on large financial institutions, partly because they are a disproportionate part of market-cap-weighted equity portfolios. More importantly, as we learned in 2008 and 2009, dysfunction in the financial system and weaknesses in large financial institutions have systemic consequences. From the perspective of an investor, they have portfolio-wide consequences.

Are there any special issues you expect to tackle this year as a member of the SEC Investor Advisory Committee?

I don't want to prejudge what the agenda of the committee might be ' I assume the SEC is going to be interested in the committee's views on Dodd-Frank implementation, and as long as that remains a large part of the SEC's work flow, it's going to be something that's on our agenda.

I think a lot of investors are unhappy with the so-called JOBS Act, and there are implementation issues associated with that which could mitigate the potential for problematic outcomes for investors. And then there is the ongoing corporate governance agenda and debate; there are also separate conversations about the regulation of markets and the regulation of financial intermediaries on which the SEC has formally and informally sought the views of investors. I assume that those will be things that we will be talking about as well.

I am honored to have been appointed to the committee, and pleased to be in the company of my fellow investors. I'm looking forward to trying to assist the SEC in its work.

When Behavioral Tracking Gets Creepy

Online behavioral tracking, in theory, is beneficial to both marketers and consumers. When marketers can track a web user's behavior (anonymously) within a website or across certain ad network properties, they can serve up ads that are aligned with the user's apparent interests.

Image credit 5 to 9 Branding

For example, if you search for 'camping gear,' visit a couple of websites that sell camping gear, and read a few articles about the latest new camping products, don't be surprised if you start seeing ads for camping equipment brands and retailers on subsequent websites you visit.

Marketers want to put their ads in front of people who display an interest in what they have to sell, and consumers (presumably) prefer to see ads relevant to their interests. And as long as the tracking is done anonymously, no one's privacy is actually violated.

There is a problem, however, when anonymity is lost and marketers are able to learn far more about you than they need, or you want them, to know.

I recently visited a marketing interaction software vendor's website (doesn't matter who'I'm not out to besmirch the company, but rather look at a disturbing practice that goes well beyond a single organization) and read in disconcerting detail about what's possible when the vendor's product is combined with analytics, post-click marketing software, online databases, marketing automation software and social media monitoring tools.

Anyone familiar with website analytics tools understands that when you visit a website, certain bits of knowledge about you are collected: your (approximate) geographic location, browser used, device used, network (corporate or ISP), and of course your behavior (pages viewed, time spent) while on the site. But it's all collected anonymously; Google Analytics and other website tools can't identify you specifically.

Even when this data is paired with website visitor intelligence packages, you remain individually anonymous. The site owner knows a bit more about you (e.g., the size of the company if you're within a corporate network, your industry, your office location) but still nothing personally identifiable.

This technology crosses the line from helpful to creepy when these online behavior elements can be traced to you as an individual, and then supplemented with other online databases and information sources.

Here's an analogy: you attend a local business networking event, and meet John Doe. He tells you that he knows a bit about you because he's seen you mentioned on Twitter and read your blog a few times. You're flattered'this social media stuff works! And you have a fan.

Now, slightly different scenario: again, you attend the networking event and meet John Doe. But this time, he doesn't just know about your blog, he knows when and where you were born, where you went to high school and college, your home address, the age and approximate market value of your home, the type of car you drive (and the fact you had some major service work performed last week), how many kids you have, how old they are, that you have a dog (aging and with a bad hip), and your entire work history.

That's not flattering, it's creepy. You don't have a fan, you have a stalker.

How is this possible in the behavioral tracking realm? It can happen when you lose your anonymity by providing the most rudimentary personal information on a vendor's website, such as entering your name and email address in order to register for a webinar or download a white paper.

Visitor tracking and marketing automation systems can now use various technologies to tag you, and from that point on, everything you do on the vendor's website is attributed to YOU, individually. Furthermore, the vendor can now tie this behavior to personal information purchased from online database owners and scraped from social media profiles and updates.

Using this information, the vendor can display different products, offers, even prices to you. Helpful? Possibly. Creepy? Most definitely.

What to do about this is a thornier question however. Industry self-regulation would be the ideal answer in theory, but it often fails or falls short in practice.It's tempting to call for government regulation, but as we all saw with the SOPA and PIPA debacle, the heavy hand of government often hurts or threatens the innocent in its ham-handed efforts to punish the guilty. Stopping copyright and IP theft seems like an eminently laudable goal, but the government's approach was horrendous.

The same risk certainly applies here, though it's probably inevitable that legislation will end up being part of the public response. Along with that, individuals need to careful about what they post online, companies need to accurately disclose their information use policies, and creative developers need to continue creating tools that enhance web user privacy.

But ultimately, companies need to more respectful of their customers. Collect reasonable information, but not everything available. What counts as 'reasonable?' Ask your customers and prospects. Happily, ethical companies can do the right thing today. Unhappily, unethical or overzealous marketers are likely to bring down upon the industry government regulation that, if history is any guide, do as much harm as good in the end.

The Rise of Digital Influence: From Persuasion and Passion to Action

(Digital) influence is the capacity to affect others to take actions and/or change opinions or behavior. It can happen directly (persuasion) and indirectly. However, it is always characterized by the resulting actions and changes.

Influence is used by people for many reasons: some 'good', some 'bad', some in between. Influence is powerful and marketers love it. In a world where traditional marketing has less impact, marketers want to involve the so-called influencers.

The outcomes matter most and you only get if you put in

Influencer marketing is not a question of reach. It's a matter of results. Often, marketers forget that. Marketing starts with defining goals and figuring out ways to fulfil them. Many marketers forget that as well: if trying to involve people who are influential you need to know why, who they are, what they want and how you can deserve their support to achieve these goals.

You should also look beyond existing influencers: your job is to provide great customer experiences. That's where brand advocacy and influence are born. Give them space to grow, just like you should do with communities.

Many marketers tend to focus on 'the big influencers' and forget their existing brand advocates and the untapped potential of ' potentially ' passionate influencers, such as their own employees and their happiest customers.

Sometimes marketers also confuse influencer marketing with manipulation, bribing or worse. Influence is something you deserve by being relevant for others. If not, it's power or manipulation. The support of an influencer needs to be deserved by marketers as well. Indeed, by being relevant. If you want to ignite others to pass their passion along, you even need more than relevance. You need to be remarkable and passionate too.

Influencers are customers, even if they don't buy

Marketers also tend to focus a lot on the connected consumer. However, realize that your best and most influential customers might be not that connected at all. It depends, among others, on your business and ecosystem.

Furthermore, look at influencers as customers. Don't only ask what they can do for you. Start by asking what you can do for them. Understand what makes them influential in the first place and what makes them tick. Very often, it's about emotions.

There are many models regarding persuasion and influence, among which that of Robert B. Cialdini. Study them (and all the others) and understand how you can turn the principles of influence and what everyone in your ecosystem ' customers, influencers, other stakeholders ' wants, likes and needs, into action. They ' in alignment with your business goals ' come first. Next, make sure you live upon your promises towards them.

The rise of digital influence: takeaways

Last, but not least, note that influence is not a matter of scores but I hope you already knew that.

In his Altimeter Group report, 'The Rise of Digital Influence', Brian Solis, looks at the dynamics of influence, how we often use it in the wrong away and how to develop a plan of action, spiced with several case studies.

Some things to remember:

• Don't measure influence. Measure the outcomes. This obviously requires you know your goals and realize what word of mouth means for your business.
• Reach is a measure of potential impact, not a goal as such.
• Relevance is key, always: in fact, it's the glue of relationships on the social web and thus of word of mouth and influence.
• Define metrics and KPIs in alignment with your goals. Examples: sales/referrals, brand lift (make sure you know the impact of brand awareness on your business as well, if you want to measure all the way).
• Develop a plan of action with the following three key components: 1) Objectives, 2) Steps, and 3) Elements that require definition.

Discover Brian Solis' full report in the slideshare presentation below.

More about influence in the Brian Solis Social Business Sessions.

The Rise of Digital Influence

View more documents from Altimeter Group Network on SlideShare

Movements ' Bringing the Dead Celebrity Back to Life

Pepsi has just resurrected a partnership that some thought had died with its superstar. In an exclusive global deal Pepsico has teamed up with the estate of Michael Jackson as part of its 'Live for Now' campaign, which aims to firmly re-establish the brand as the pop cultural leader at the fizzy forefront of current entertainment amongst the teen and youth market.

The 'Live for Now' Movement aims to engage with this fickle group by using music influencers, including Katy Perry and Nicki Minaj, to remind them that they should be the number one soda of choice for their generation through mediums they understand and talk about ' pop music and culture.

But does the thought of Pepsi teaming up again with Michael Jackson leave a bad taste in the mouth? For some, the answer is a resounding yes. Pepsi teamed up with Jackson before ' the relationship spanned over 25 years. It sponsored the record-breaking Bad tour in the 80s and ran various successful Jackson commercials. As part of 'Live for Now' Jackson's silhouette will now grace over a billion special edition Pepsi cans with tie-ins to merchandise and remixed tracks from the Bad album, which celebrates its 25th anniversary this year.

But some just can't forget that it was Pepsi who was shooting the commercial where Jackson suffered third-degree burns in 1984 ' an incident which many fans blame for the start of Jackson's now well-documented drug problems.

As such, some have questioned the suitability of this resurrected partnership. Jackson himself isn't here to sanction it, as with all dead celebrities it's their estates which are responsible for ensuring legacy through carefully chosen brand tie-ins which have mutual benefit.

And this is perhaps the secret of success in branding a dead celebrity. You have to please the fans ' with the power of social networks, fans can make or break a campaign by either backing or boycotting.

But you also have to bring back that celebrity in a current way. Elvis and Lennon probably mean little to today's youth generation, they're stagnant 'brands' which have, as yet, not hit the right note amongst this group.

Which is why Pepsi have gone down the route of bringing Jackson's music to a new generation through modern methods, including the Pepsi Pulse interactive 'Live for Now' website which has real-time updates about everything to do with pop culture ' events for your area, challenges, offers and more.

It's 'Live for Now' Movement captures the very spirit of youth, encouraging inspiration, motivation and a shared passion for everything pop, with natural social media interaction. The fact that Jackson may or may not have actually drank Pepsi is completely irrelevant, as with all successful Movements it's not actually about the product itself.

So what's next in the world of dead celebrity branding? Ask Tupac. He appeared on stage at Coachella ' albeit in hologram form ' and with the advent of this technology it's surely just the beginning of a long-departed celebrity's new life. Advertising, commercials, tours '.suddenly it seems the dead are the hottest tickets in town.

My Top 10 Quotes From Bad Sales Reps

I've been involved in sales since I first started canvassing door to door for a home improvement company when I was in high school.  At times, the things I have heard colleagues say make me wonder why they are involved with sales.

With that said, I came up with my Top 10 quotes I've heard from people in sales that may want to consider a new career path.

10. 'My targets are all C-level or VP level execs.  They never answer the phone, so I just send emails' ' By not picking up the phone you miss out on the opportunity to be directed to a more appropriate contact.  Chances are the Executive Administrator will be happy to direct you somewhere else.

9. 'I view Social Media as a Social Nuisance!'  Whether you agree or not, Social Media has cemented it's place in the B2B environment.  If you are not taking advantage, I know your competition is!

8. 'My scripts have always worked in the past and I see no reason to change them now' ' An inability to adapt and adjust is a major flaw in any industry and sales is not excluded. I'm willing to assume that #1 on the leaderboard adjusts their pitch regularly and specific to their prospect.

7. 'I usually just wing it!' ' Preparedness is one of the most important aspects of any conversation. People won't respect your time if you don't respect theirs!

6. 'I'm not good at public speaking' ' Being comfortable enough to speak in front of strangers and lead a conversation is an important skill set for any rep.  If this concerns you, then time to try another industry.

5. 'I didn't ask for the referal because I felt uncomfortable' ' Not taking advantage of your time with a prospect is a wasted opportunity.

4. 'I like the sound of my own voice' ' The best sales person knows when to talk and when to listen.  Younger sales professionals seem too eager to fill the awkward silence when, chances are, your prospect needs the opportunity to digest the information you provided, or just think of a response to your question.

3. 'I'll take any appointment' ' Qualifying your prospects means your aren't wasting their time or yours.  Too many times I see reps assume they have an opportunity just because someone offered them 5 minutes of their time.

2. 'I am afraid that someone will say 'NO'' ' What's the average now, 6 no's for 1 yes? If you are afraid of hearing 'no', you certainly don't belong in sales.

And the #1 quote from a bad sales rep'.

1. 'When I was a kid, I wanted to be a Police Officer' ' Ok, so nobody grows up saying they 'want to be a Enterprise Account Executive', but when you hear someone discussing what they 'wanted to be', then they are probably settling for their position and won't be happy in the future.

Look'I get it, sales is not for everyone, and that's fine, but if you want to be successful in sales, don't take advice from these reps!

4 Ways To Jumpstart Your Mobile Marketing Presence

Mobile media is the wave of the future.  Everybody knows that, but do we know why? The ability to do business and get things done while not being at a desktop computer and the affordability of mobile media are just a few reasons why people are upgrading from 'dumbphones' to smartphones. What does this information mean for your business? How can you get in on a piece of the action? Let's look at four different ways for your business to get in on the mobile media craze.

First, here's a little information on who is using mobile media. Over 50% of all mobile Internet users are over the age of 35, as shown in the infographic below, meaning they aren't just using their smartphones as a gaming system. These users want to pay bills online, check to make sure they turned the lights off in their house, schedule their child's next doctor appointment while on break at work, or find companies that can help them out professionally and personally. So, what should your business do to get started?

1. Mobilize your website: One thing businesses need to stop putting off is making their website mobile friendly. If you don't make this change, smartphone users will have a hard time accessing your website when they're on the go. If a potential customer can't easily find your phone number or email address while searching online with their smartphone, they'll be quick to move onto the next website that came up in their search. Mobilizing your website can easily be done by leveraging the HubSpot CMS for your next website.

2. Mobile social media: Next, as long as you have at least a Facebook and Twitter account, you're a step ahead. If you advertise that you're on these social media sites, people will look you up on their smartphones. Using these sites as a tool to promote specials and services will up your mobile traffic and ultimately create more business. Social media sites are also great for maintaining a healthy customer relationship. If they're pleased with your product or service, they will tweet it out to everyone following them. Can you say 'free marketing'?

3. App ads: A good portion of money and business that smartphones make are from apps.   Even if the app is free, there will be advertisements placed throughout the program, so businesses can get their brand in an app that they believe their customers will utilize.

Can you guess who controls the most mobile advertisement placements? That's right: Google. So not only is Google controlling your search results based on keywords and search engine optimization; now you will go through Google to have your ad appear on smartphone apps.

4. Build your own App: Instead of paying Google to place an ad in an app for you, why not build your own app? Building an app would make doing business with smartphone users so much easier. Compared to mobile sites, apps are quicker, easier to use and more impressive to consumers. There are different websites that can help you create apps, so if you're into making things easy for your customers consider going this route.

Hopefully these tips on mobilizing your company have been helpful. I'd love to hear opinions on the below infographic and others' thoughts on what makes the most sense for companies looking to jumpstart their mobile presence!

Image Credit