Social Networks are among the most powerful examples of socialized media. They create a dynamic ecosystem that incubates and nurtures relationships between people and the content they create and share.

As these communities permeate and reshape our lifestyle and how we communicate with one another, we’re involuntarily forcing advertisers and marketers to rapidly evolve how they vie for our attention.

Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Yelp, and other online communities transformed the regimen and practice of marketing “at” people into an opportunity to engage and interact with us – on our terms. It is the zeitgeist of socialized media and it’s manifesting into an obsession for branding, advertising, “viral,” marketing, and communications experts and professionals worldwide.

But, the people who define each network are reticent to the hollow attempts of faceless friending and in-network marketing. Many businesses are building social channels to broadcast messages in a one to many, top-down practice that not only prevents relationship building, but impedes any hope of cultivating communities and empowering brand ambassadors.

As marketers, it’s your responsibility to peel back the layers of each network to observe and eventually interact with the very people you wish to reach. Each network possesses a vibrant culture and ecosystem that is powered by context and connected by influential social graphs.

While nothing beats anthropological fieldwork and observation, let’s take a look at numbers behind the top social networks to get a better picture of network engagement and user demographics.

Remember, it’s how you interpret these numbers combined with an understanding of the real world needs and experiences of the people you’re attempting to engage that determines the success or failure of your social media program.

They are not demographics, they are not statistics, they are not avatars, nor are they waiting with baited breath for you to friend or market at them and their network friends. This data represents whole numbers and is not representative of the individuals that are looking for resources and guidance, and in turn, will help you participate as a community member.

So, how will you use this information to engage more effectively and genuinely?

Data: August 2009
All stats are from Google Ad Planner unless otherwise noted

30-day traffic, (U.S., Worldwide)

Unique Visitors – 110 M, 370 M
Reach – 45.6%, 28.8%
Page views – 52 B, 160 B
Total visits – 3.1 B, 8.7 B
Avg visits per visitor – 28,23
Avg time on site – 20:00, 23:20s

Gender
Male: 43%
Female: 57%

Age

0 – 17: 18%
18 – 24: 7%
25 – 34: 14%
35 – 44: 20%
45 – 54: 24%
55 – 64: 12%
65 or more: 4%

Household Income

$0 – $24,999: 7%
$25,000 – $49,999: 22%
$50,000 – $74,999: 36%
$75,000 – $99,999: 18%
100,000 – $149,999: 12%
$150,000 or More: 5%

Children in Household

Yes: 36%
No: 64%

Education

Less than HS diploma: 22%
High School: 14%
Some College: 36%
Bachelors Degree: 20%
Graduate Degree: 8%

–

30-day traffic, (U.S., Worldwide)

Unique Visitors – 1.2 M, 4.6 M
Reach – 0.5%, 0.4%
Page views – 31 M, 97 M
Total visits – 7.2M, 21 M
Avg visits per visitor – 6, 4.6
Avg time on site – 6:50, 6:50

Gender
Male: 48%
Female: 52%

Age

0 – 17: 3%
18 – 24: 7%
25 – 34: 20%
35 – 44: 36%
45 – 54: 16%
55 – 64: 14%
65 or more: 3%

Household Income

$0 – $24,999: 22%
$25,000 – $49,999: 29%
$50,000 – $74,999: 16%
$75,000 – $99,999: 20%
100,000 – $149,999: 8%
$150,000 or More: 5%

Children in Household

Yes: 11%
No: 89%

Education

Less than HS diploma: 4%
High School: 7%
Some College: 43%
Bachelors Degree: 32%
Graduate Degree: 14%

–

30-day traffic, (U.S., Worldwide)

Unique Visitors – 9 M, 23 M
Reach – 3.9%, 1.8%
Page views – 230 M, 410 M
Total visits – 53 M, 98 M
Avg visits per visitor – 5.9, 4.2
Avg time on site – 7:30, 6:50

Gender
Male: 64%
Female: 36%

Age

0 – 17: 11%
18 – 24: 9%
25 – 34: 18%
35 – 44: 29%
45 – 54: 18%
55 – 64: 10%
65 or more: 4%

Household Income

$0 – $24,999: 14%
$25,000 – $49,999: 28%
$50,000 – $74,999: 25%
$75,000 – $99,999: 20%
100,000 – $149,999: 10%
$150,000 or More: 4%

Children in Household

Yes: 22%
No: 78%

Education

Less than HS diploma: 15%
High School: 10%
Some College: 39%
Bachelors Degree: 27%
Graduate Degree: 9%

–

30-day traffic, (U.S., Worldwide)

Unique Visitors – 1.8 M, 4.6 M
Reach – 0.8%, 0.4%
Page views – 12 M, 28 M
Total visits – 3.9 M, 9 M
Avg visits per visitor – 2.1, 2
Avg time on site – 4:00, 4:10

Gender
Male: 41%
Female: 59%

Age

0 – 17: 8%
18 – 24: 5%
25 – 34: 14%
35 – 44: 25%
45 – 54: 30%
55 – 64: 16%
65 or more: 3%

Household Income

$0 – $24,999: 10%
$25,000 – $49,999: 23%
$50,000 – $74,999: 30%
$75,000 – $99,999: 20%
100,000 – $149,999: 12%
$150,000 or More: 6%

Children in Household

Yes: 19%
No: 81%

Education

Less than HS diploma: 9%
High School: 11%
Some College: 44%
Bachelors Degree: 24%
Graduate Degree: 13%

–

30-day traffic, (U.S., Worldwide)

Unique Visitors – 19 M, 73 M
Reach – 8.3%, 5.7%
Page views – 1 B, 3 B
Total visits – 94 M, 280 M
Avg visits per visitor – 4.9, 3.8
Avg time on site – 8:00, 9:10

Gender
Male: 45%
Female: 55%

Age

0 – 17: 13%
18 – 24: 9%
25 – 34: 19%
35 – 44: 25%
45 – 54: 21%
55 – 64: 11%
65 or more: 3%

Household Income

$0 – $24,999: 12%
$25,000 – $49,999: 27%
$50,000 – $74,999: 29%
$75,000 – $99,999: 18%
100,000 – $149,999: 10%
$150,000 or More: 4%

Children in Household

Yes: 28%
No: 72%

Education

Less than HS diploma: 16%
High School: 11%
Some College: 41%
Bachelors Degree: 23%
Graduate Degree: 9%

–

30-day traffic, (U.S., Worldwide)

Unique Visitors – 680K, 2.6 M
Reach – 0.3%, 0.2%
Page views – 16 M, 59 M
Total visits – 3.4 M, 12 M
Avg visits per visitor – 5.1, 4.6
Avg time on site – 8:00, 9:50

Gender
Male: 45%
Female: 55%

Age

0 – 17: 2%
18 – 24: 9%
25 – 34: 24%
35 – 44: 43%
45 – 54: 14%
55 – 64: 7%
65 or more: 2%

Household Income

$0 – $24,999: 30%
$25,000 – $49,999: 30%
$50,000 – $74,999: 15%
$75,000 – $99,999: 15%
100,000 – $149,999: 6%
$150,000 or More: 3%

Children in Household

Yes: 10%
No: 90%

Education

Less than HS diploma: 4%
High School: 4%
Some College: 52%
Bachelors Degree: 32%
Graduate Degree: 8%

–

30-day traffic, (U.S., Worldwide)

Unique Visitors – 14 M, 31 M
Reach – 6.1%, 2.4%
Page views – 800 M, 1.4 B
Total visits – 85 M, 160 M
Avg visits per visitor – 6, 5.1
Avg time on site – 9:40, 9:00

Gender
Male: 50%
Female: 50%

Age

0 – 17: 3%
18 – 24: 3%
25 – 34: 16%
35 – 44: 31%
45 – 54: 28%
55 – 64: 16%
65 or more: 4%

Household Income

$0 – $24,999: 11%
$25,000 – $49,999: 18%
$50,000 – $74,999: 23%
$75,000 – $99,999: 23%
100,000 – $149,999: 16%
$150,000 or More: 10%

Children in Household

Yes: 10%
No: 90%

Education

Less than HS diploma: 4%
High School: 9%
Some College: 34%
Bachelors Degree: 37%
Graduate Degree: 16%

–

30-day traffic, (U.S., Worldwide)

Unique Visitors – 570 K, 2.3 M
Reach – 0.2%, 0.2%
Page views – 7.4 M, 21 M
Total visits – 1.6 M, 4.6 M
Avg visits per visitor – 2.7, 2
Avg time on site – 5:40, 5:10

Gender
Male: 52%
Female: 48%

Age

0 – 17: 11%
18 – 24: 10%
25 – 34: 21%
35 – 44: 26%
45 – 54: 19%
55 – 64: 10%
65 or more: 2%

Household Income

$0 – $24,999: 17%
$25,000 – $49,999: 32%
$50,000 – $74,999: 24%
$75,000 – $99,999: 16%
100,000 – $149,999: 8%
$150,000 or More: 3%

Children in Household

Yes: 24%
No: 76%

Education

Less than HS diploma: 14%
High School: 10%
Some College: 48%
Bachelors Degree: 20%
Graduate Degree: 7%

–

30-day traffic, (U.S., Worldwide)

Unique Visitors – 61 M, 120 M
Reach – 26.1%, 9.1%
Page views – 32 B, 39 B
Total visits – 1.2 B, 1.5 B
Avg visits per visitor – 19, 13
Avg time on site – 23:20, 21:40

Gender
Male: 36%
Female: 64%

Age

0 – 17: 34%
18 – 24: 10%
25 – 34: 12%
35 – 44: 16%
45 – 54: 19%
55 – 64: 7%
65 or more: 2%

Household Income

$0 – $24,999: 7%
$25,000 – $49,999: 39%
$50,000 – $74,999: 35%
$75,000 – $99,999: 11%
100,000 – $149,999: 6%
$150,000 or More: 2%

Children in Household

Yes: 57%
No: 43%

Education

Less than HS diploma: 32%
High School: 12%
Some College: 42%
Bachelors Degree: 10%
Graduate Degree: 4%

–

30-day traffic, (U.S., Worldwide)

Unique Visitors – 5.6 M, 18 M
Reach – 2.4%, 1.4%
Page views – 250 M, 650 M
Total visits – 28 M, 74 M
Avg visits per visitor – 5, 4.1
Avg time on site – 11:40, 11:40

Gender
Male: 41%
Female: 59%

Age

0 – 17: 15%
18 – 24: 10%
25 – 34: 17%
35 – 44: 25%
45 – 54: 20%
55 – 64: 10%
65 or more: 3%

Household Income

$0 – $24,999: 13%
$25,000 – $49,999: 34%
$50,000 – $74,999: 28%
$75,000 – $99,999: 14%
100,000 – $149,999: 8%
$150,000 or More: 3%

Children in Household

Yes: 36%
No: 64%

Education

Less than HS diploma: 17%
High School: 10%
Some College: 48%
Bachelors Degree: 18%
Graduate Degree: 7%

–

30-day traffic, (U.S., Worldwide)

Unique Visitors – 120 K, 380 K
Reach – 0.1%, 0.0%
Page views – 1.8 M, 5.1 M
Total visits – 340 K, 920 K
Avg visits per visitor – 2.8, 2.4
Avg time on site – 7:00, 8:00

Gender
Male: 52%
Female: 48%

Age

0 – 17: 6%
18 – 24: 13%
25 – 34: 23%
35 – 44: 34%
45 – 54: 16%
55 – 64: 6%
65 or more: 2%

Household Income

$0 – $24,999: 21%
$25,000 – $49,999: 31%
$50,000 – $74,999: 23%
$75,000 – $99,999: 16%
100,000 – $149,999: 7%
$150,000 or More: 3%

Children in Household

Yes: 22%
No: 78%

Education

Less than HS diploma: 9%
High School: 10%
Some College: 46%
Bachelors Degree: 28%
Graduate Degree: 7%

–

30-day traffic, (U.S., Worldwide)

Unique Visitors – 4.2 M, 23 M
Reach – 1.8%, 1.8%
Page views – 32 M, 160 M
Total visits – 10 M, 51 M
Avg visits per visitor – 2.5, 2.2
Avg time on site – 4:50, 5:30

Gender
Male: 52%
Female: 48%

Age

0 – 17: 9%
18 – 24: 6%
25 – 34: 17%
35 – 44: 25%
45 – 54: 25%
55 – 64: 14%
65 or more: 3%

Household Income

$0 – $24,999: 13%
$25,000 – $49,999: 25%
$50,000 – $74,999: 27%
$75,000 – $99,999: 20%
100,000 – $149,999: 10%
$150,000 or More: 5%

Children in Household

Yes: 21%
No: 79%

Education

Less than HS diploma: 12%
High School: 11%
Some College: 40%
Bachelors Degree: 25%
Graduate Degree: 13%

–

30-day traffic, (U.S., Worldwide)

Unique Visitors – 24 M, 66 M
Reach – 10.1%, 5.1%
Page views – 2.1 B, 4B
Total visits – 270 M, 550 M
Avg visits per visitor – 11, 8.3
Avg time on site – 12:10, 11:40

Gender
Male: 43%
Female: 57%

Age

0 – 17: 11%
18 – 24: 8%
25 – 34: 16%
35 – 44: 29%
45 – 54: 20%
55 – 64: 11%
65 or more: 3%

Household Income

$0 – $24,999: 13%
$25,000 – $49,999: 30%
$50,000 – $74,999: 27%
$75,000 – $99,999: 16%
100,000 – $149,999: 10%
$150,000 or More: 4%

Children in Household

Yes: 28%
No: 72%

Education

Less than HS diploma: 12%
High School: 9%
Some College: 47%
Bachelors Degree: 24%
Graduate Degree: 8%

–

via Quantcast (estimated, for June 2009)

Via Compete.com for June 2009
Unique Monthly Visitors: 1.4 M
Total Visits: 1.8 M

Via Quantcast for June 2009
Gender
Male: 45%
Female: 55%

Education
No College: 45%
College: 42%
Grad. School: 13%

Children in Household
Yes: 59%
No: 41%

Household Income
$0 – $30,000: 20%
$30,000 – $60,000: 28%
$60,000 – $100,000: 29%
$100,000+: 23%

Age
13-17: 7%
18-34: 34%
35-49: 32%
50+: 26%

–

30-day traffic, (U.S., Worldwide)

Unique Visitors – 1.5 M, 4.6 M
Reach – 0.6%, 0.4%
Page views – 34 M, 73 M
Total visits – 6.1 M, 14 M
Avg visits per visitor – 4.1, 3.1
Avg time on site – 11:20, 9:50

Gender
Male: 34%
Female: 66%

Age

0 – 17: 12%
18 – 24: 15%
25 – 34: 22%
35 – 44: 26%
45 – 54: 15%
55 – 64: 8%
65 or more: 2%

Household Income

$0 – $24,999: 18%
$25,000 – $49,999: 35%
$50,000 – $74,999: 24%
$75,000 – $99,999: 13%
100,000 – $149,999: 7%
$150,000 or More: 2%

Children in Household

Yes: 34%
No: 66%

Education

Less than HS diploma: 16%
High School: 8%
Some College: 50%
Bachelors Degree: 19%
Graduate Degree: 6%

–

30-day traffic, (U.S., Worldwide)

Unique Visitors – 9.7 M, 11 M
Reach – 4.2%, 0.9%
Page views – 160 M, 160 M
Total visits – 33 M, 35 M
Avg visits per visitor – 3.4, 3.1
Avg time on site – 6:00, 5:30

Gender
Male: 43%
Female: 57%

Age

0 – 17: 6%
18 – 24: 5%
25 – 34: 17%
35 – 44: 27%
45 – 54: 27%
55 – 64: 15%
65 or more: 3%

Household Income

$0 – $24,999: 9%
$25,000 – $49,999: 18%
$50,000 – $74,999: 29%
$75,000 – $99,999: 19%
100,000 – $149,999: 16%
$150,000 or More: 8%

Children in Household

Yes: 15%
No: 85%

Education

Less than HS diploma: 8%
High School: 10%
Some College: 35%
Bachelors Degree: 32%
Graduate Degree: 14%

–

Via Compete.com for June 2009

Unique Monthly Visitors: 78 M
Total Visits: 459 M

Via Quantcast for June 2009

Gender
Male: 50%
Female: 50%

Education
No College: 48%
College: 39%
Grad. School: 13%

Children in Household
Yes: 43%
No: 57%

Household Income
$0 – $30,000: 20%
$30,000 – $60,000: 27%
$60,000 – $100,000: 27%
$100,000+: 27%

Age
13-17: 19%
18-34: 35%
35-49: 24%
50+: 19%

—

Connect with Brian Solis on:
Twitter, FriendFeed, LinkedIn, Tumblr, Plaxo, Plurk, Identi.ca, BackType, Posterous, or Facebook

—
Kindle users, subscribe to PR 2.0 here.
—
New book and Conversation Prism poster now available (click below to purchase):

—
pr pr+2.0 pr2.0 public+relations marketing advertising interactive social+media socialmedia brian+solis social media media2.0 media+2.0 2.0 smo social+media+optimization marcom communication publicity advertising expert interactive spin brand branding guru social+architect

This post highlights the nuances associated with crisis communications and not the merit of either case.

In the era of socialized media, brands and businesses are now vulnerable to a new era of influencers – their customers.

But what happens when the community that championed consumer experiences is accused of exploiting them to extort advertising dollars from the businesses affected by the reviews?

User generated reviews aren’t necessarily a brand new concept, epinions, Amazon, among any others have provided dedicated outlets for customers to share their experiences over the years so that other consumers could heed the words of their peers before making a purchase. The ability to integrate reviews at the point of purchase empowered consumers to contribute content as well as help them make more informed decisions – before the purchase.

Enter Yelp.com.

Yelp is an Amazon reviews fused with the Yellow Pages of local services and businesses. It empowered patrons and consumers alike to share experiences and sentiment associated with businesses, by locale, with other yelpers. Yahoo, City Guide, Trip Advisor, and other online properties have offered similar capabilities for a while, but Yelp connected people and experiences and built a dedicated community around them – whereas the other services organized experiences tied to somewhat isolated and explicit search results. Yelp connected people based on interests while giving them a voice that collectively could, in theory, influence a business to grow, adapt, participate, and learn.

Initially, businesses gasped at the popularity of Yelp. Most weren’t quite sure how to react – and still don’t to this day. Was it a threat? Was it wrong to empower customers to share negative and positive reviews together? Many businesses under estimated the socialization and amplification of experiences, and attempted to suppress them rather than address them. Others assumed the role of patrons and raved about their own services hoping to balance negative experiences or influence future contributions instead of simply embracing and responding to individuals, and/or evolving because of the interaction.

The same platform that can provide small businesses with visibility, a collaborative community, and new revenue opportunities can also affect their bottom line through negative commentary.

Now approaching 23 million unique visitors every month, it continues to change everything.

This week, the tables were turned, when Yelp found itself the victim of a bad review. The East Bay Express published what actually could be considered an exposé of the company, practically accusing certain salespersons of practicing what the piece dramatically referred to as “Extortion 2.0.” Essentially, the author, Kathleen Richards, interviewed several local businesses that claimed Yelp applied strong-arm sales tactics to exchange the promotion of good reviews and the elimination of negative commentary for advertising dollars to the tune of $300 per month.

As a practitioner of total transparency and just good business, Jeremy Stoppelman, CEO of Yelp, responded with an impressive blog post.

If the story ended there, we’d have a textbook case of what to do when confronted with bad PR.

However, The East Bay Express’ detailed six page article didn’t just accuse a highly popular company of unethical behavior, it humanized the alleged victims through their fearful narration of Yelp’s purported blackmail attempts over time. It engendered empathy.

And, Jeremy didn’t just write a blog post in defense of his company, he also fired back with a defense worthy of a legal drama, at one point, insinuating that Kathleen’s use of anonymous sources was beneath the standards of journalism and therefore less credible.

So let’s back up a bit and analyze this scenario from a communications and crisis response viewpoint.

Whether or not you agree with the practice of referencing anonymous sources is moot. The East Bay Express still published a piece that references several businesses who came forward, but chose to remain anonymous as they were literally afraid of any potential acts of retribution from Yelp.com. For the record, citing anonymous sources is a long-standing and respected practice in journalism and is protected by law in order to uncover the truth behind many stories

The article states, “During interviews with dozens of business owners over a span of several months, six people told this newspaper that Yelp sales representatives promised to move or remove negative reviews if their business would advertise. In another six instances, positive reviews disappeared — or negative ones appeared — after owners declined to advertise.”

The case was reinforced with a condemning statement, “Several business owners likened Yelp to the Mafia, and one said she feared its retaliation. “

The themes are reiterated throughout the verbose feature and actually serve as the foundation for Yelp to develop a strategic and meaningful response.

- Many business owners believe Yelp employees use such reviews as sales leads.

- Several suspect Yelp employees of writing them.

- Yelp does pay some employees to write reviews of businesses that are solicited for advertising. In fact, the publication uncovered one documented instance where a business owner who refused to advertise received a negative review from a Yelp employee.

Whether these accusations are right or wrong, they’re incredibly defamatory. And, if the reporter indeed interviewed dozens of fearful companies who shared this sentiment, perhaps there’s credence in the experiences. Either way, there’s a perception that certain Yelp salespersons are crossing the line. And, in the world of online social influence, perception can be reality.

It’s what you say about you, what they hear, how they share that story, and how you weave that insight into future conversations that underscore meaningful community-driven efforts. And, everything starts with listening and observing in order to maintain relevance to the very communities we wish to reach, learn from, and inspire.

In Yelp’s response, Jeremy cited an everyday local business to deconstruct Kathleen’s case, “As you can see while the first review is positive (and very clearly marked up) the reviews below are neutral and yes even negative. This is quite normal and if you look around the site and click on some ads you’ll find plenty of advertisers with reviews that look like… well, everybody else. We showed this evidence to Kathleen, but it didn’t find prominent placement in her story.”

He continued by sharing three additional supporting points that he hoped would discount the article.

1 – Kathleen relied on five anonymous sources and only three non-anonymous sources. Use of anonymous sources is fraught with hazards and is strongly discouraged by most editors, as explained by the American Journalism Review.

2 – Sadly at least one of the named sources is affiliated with a business that has spent a considerable amount of time and energy trying to mislead customers like you with fake reviews. Below is a sample of some of the many reviews we’ve removed from Sofa Outlet’s page…

3 – The accusatory thrust of article is essentially overturned at the very end.

But, what if those dozens of companies, irrespective of anonymity, actually experienced a fraction of their claims? After all, the COO of Yelp conceded in the article that there may be a miscommunication depending on the conversational skills of the individual sales rep. The pitch can be open to interpretation, “Do I think that sales reps call are saying, ‘We’ll move your bad reviews?’ No. But I think it could be true — when you get to pick your favorite review and put it to the top, if I said it a little different way, it might sound a little nefarious.”

This is the social web and not only is perception reality; it’s highly influential when not proactively engaged and steered.

Remember, the Motrin Mom controversy? Whether or not the Motrin Mom’s were justified in their reaction, it still reached a boiling point fueled by the absence of a corporate response or acknowledgment.

In every negative discussion there exists an opportunity to change perception and also learn and improve the communications and service infrastructure – winning customer support along the way.

I weighed in:

The Twitter community responded:

effbentley: their blog post was a pretty weak response imho

RunningRebel: it’s not just the sales tactics that bothered me. Crazier is that they pay people to seed reviews! Is anything legit there?

erikbratt: Think the Yelp response is effective, changing initial opinion. Interesting how cos. can now respond directly to neg. news

leslysimmons: re: yelp… sounds like they have some credibility work to do, and this is coming from an Elite Yelper!

kfleisher: I think that Yelp’s blog post was a great way to address the issue. transparent and informative.

Mjausson: Seems that EBE’s coverage of Yelp has had the desired effect. Time will tell if they return to their old ways.

Serena: I’m surprised. Is it true? Is it not? Do I still use yelp? I’m actually torn

slazarus: I like the fact a senior person responded directly to the article. Most companies ignore bad PR hoping is would go away

journalistics: they get points in my book for addressing the issue head on – “we don’t do this” and trying to provide proof via pictures

KPfefferle: Strange response, not sure Yelp really addressed the issue. The counterattacks alone make me think they’re hiding something.

However, this exchange published in the Wall Street Journal between Susan Mernit, Jeremy Stoppelman, and Schlomo Rabinowitz paints a very different picture…

Susan Mernit: Do Yelp sales reps sell bad review removal to local biz? East Bay Express says mebbe, yes

Stoppelman: @susanmernit We don’t: http://tinyurl.com/bbuvfa

Schlomo Rabinowitz: @susanmernit Yes, Yelp has offered me monthly plans where I can bury negative reviews for @houseofshields They are scummy; CitySearch2.0

Stoppelman: @Schlomo We have no such program, never have, never will.

The best defense is not being “defensive,” nor is it simply powered by going on the offensive. Bottom line, there’s always room for improvement. Communicate that message and watch the tone and flow of the conversations shift to your favor.

It’s the process of not only using the same tools that your community is using to share their opinions and emotions across the social web, it’s the ability to breathe it in and demonstrate acknowledgment – regardless of frequency.

Yes, the blog post was an excellent start. Yes stating, “You don’t do that” was reaffirming. But obviously, there are those that attest to the likelihood of miscommunication. Perhaps an opportunity exists in extending the COO’s acceptance that, “Yelp could do a better job of training our sales team to be crystal clear about what you get and don’t get.”

- Simply say that you’re looking into it or ensuring that training eliminates any likelihood of miscommunication

- Promote an official support network within Yelp

- Solicit anonymous feedback, but ask for specifics under a proactive immunity program

- Communicate information and status regularly

- Recruit and deploy a special service-focused community team (perhaps the Yelp Elite) and document the tonality and frequency of related conversations and impressions in a Conversation Index before direct engagement

- Then, participate in those conversations through genuine, helpful, and non-confrontational dialog. Document the results and effects of the team’s outreach as compared to the original index

- Monitor blog posts and blog comments, spark new dialog to demonstrate that you’re listening and learning

Participation is a powerful catalyst for positive reform and also garnering additional insight and support. Maybe it’s simply relegated to one salesperson or team. Maybe it’s a miscommunication from sales training to direct sales calls. Either way, the brand reputation was called into question and in all reality; it won’t be the last time. It’s the actions of the individuals representing the brand that define brand character measured ultimately by the trust and relationships that forge, break, or strain customer and influencer relationships.

In the court of public opinion, you’re guilty until proven innocent.

What would you do differently?

UPDATE: Stowe Boyd discusses the extortion claims and the potential fallout that possibly looms ahead of the popular reviews site. Yelp attempts to dispel the myths and also claims that the EBE story is unraveling. Yelp, this is bigger than your current defensive strategy. A simple, “We’re looking into this as your trust is paramount to our success. This is not anything we endorse or support. If someone is indeed communicating or reinforcing this inaccurate perception, we find it and stop it immediately.”

As Stowe says, “Even more important, reality can be reality. If Yelp is in fact — directly or indirectly — using strongarm tactics they should deal with the consequences, which may include legal action. I hope there is a DA out there somewhere willing to look into these allegations. And we, the social media technorati, should treat this on a much more serious level than the PR fallout. If a company like Yelp acts in the way that has been alleged, we should call for a boycott of the company, and an investigation to get to the bottom of this.”

@queenofspain chimes in at /Message, “Regardless of what comes to pass, it’s an issue and it should be blogged and looked into. Is this a matter of a digerati turning their heads to the sweatheart start up? I’m curious.”

Related articles on PR 2.0:

- Reinventing Crisis Communications for the Social Web
- Comcast Cares and Why Your Business Should Too – The Socialization of Service
- Crisis Communications: Facebook and the Reality of Your Online Content
- Crisis Communications: Ariel Waldman vs. Twitter, When TOS Doesn’t Apply to You
- Crisis Communications: Mark Zuckerberg Listens and Responds to Beacon Crisis
- The Art of Conversation - It’s About Listening Not Marketing
- Free ebook: The Essential Guide to Social Media
- Free ebook: Customer Service, The Art of Listening and Engagement Through Social Media

This was STIRR ’s sixth event and there was no doubt that it was the biggest to date. In fact they had to move from Blue Chalk in Palo Alto to The Whisper Lounge in SF in order to accomodate the growth. In discussions with Sean Ness and Joanne Wan, estimates were easily placed at about 225.

225…? Kudos STIRR team!

STIRR is an effective mix of “live” social and business networking among a highly qualified crowd of tech innovators, Web 2.0 execs, entrepreneurs, VCs, bloggers, and journalists.

The STIRR team:
Sanford Barr, Co-Founder STIRR, The STIRR Network
Sean Ness, Co-Founder STIRR, Institute for the Future
Dan Arkind, Co-Founder STIRR, Indico Group
Joanne Wan, STIRR Business Development, Strategic Decisions Group

So excuse the gushing intro here, but STIRR among other events, including the Silicon Valley and SF NewTech Meetups, are by far a blinding beacon for the new economy (albeit painfully humbled,) which is quickly gaining traction among those helping in the Valley’s resuscitation.

According to my friend “Skeptic” from Dead 2.0 , I’m the softball when covering these events. That’s cool. I know I’m an optimist when it comes to seeking a resurgence in, not only the technology sector, but also inflating the enthusiasm and spirit in Silicon Valley in general. I mean, really, how long do we have to continue to bow before the almighty dollar before we figure out how to transform it into some fortuitous multiple that pulls us out of our nuclear shelters for good!

Throughout the evening, I held countless discussions with attendees commenting how the latest series of TechCrunch parties were really getting too big to effectively “network.”

STIRR’s Joanne Wan commented, “STIRR helps everyone keep a pulse on the market and encourages them to talk and explore opportunities to work together.”

TechCrunch and Michael Arrington are in a different league however – not necessarily better, just different. To attend a TechCrunch party is more like going to a concert and getting to hang out back stage. While the TechCrunch parties didn’t necessarily start that way, they’ve simply evolved into monstrous, glamorous affairs, but they do not take away one bit of STIRR’s relevance. It’s all about the rising tide. Everyone floats up together, just in different ships.

STIRR, after all, is much more than a forum to cover Web 2.0 applications, this is a monthy spotlight on the rebirth of Silicon Valley.

Onward to the “original” 60-second spot…

In an interesting change of format, CNET ‘s Rafe Needleman was the guest interviewer at this Founder’s Mixer, and, he seemed right at home. As one of the principal journalists covering Web 2.0, it truly elevated the segment.

While the infamous staircase continued to serve as the stage for the presenters, the enthusiastic crowd somewhat stymied the trademark 60-second spot. It was excruciatingly difficult to focus, but to the credit of the presenters, they let it roll. Especially Rafe, who seemed to successfully take it all in stride.

The Presenters

So, let’s just excuse those in the audience that brought their virtual megaphones and have them check those at the door for 1.7.

The Presentations…

30boxes , Narendra Rocherolle, Principal

I covered 30 Boxes in my wrap-up of the August Silicon Valley NewTech Meetup.

30 days 30 boxes. An online calendar that lets you organize your life and connect with friends. 30 Boxes is brought to you by the minds of Eighty-Three Degrees , Inc.

Eighty-Three Degrees is a small software firm exploring online consumer applications with an eye for improving the user experience, eliminating complexity, and making use of increasingly open systems.

ClickFacts , Michael Caruso, CEO

ClickFacts, Inc. develops auditing software for Internet advertising. They deploy proprietary technology that helps publishers and advertisers detect and prevent click fraud and define a TrueROI. I loved the live demonstration of throwing money away. It was, for a split second, a reminder of Web 1.0 business practices.

DevjaVu , Jeff Lindsay, Founder

DevjaVu is a small startup in San Jose, California with the purpose of encouraging people to start projects that might change the world. Their goal is to lower the barrier to entry that comes with the idea of starting a new software project by making it as easy as possible to jump right in and focus on making it happen.

DevjaVu is a great fit for both open source projects and private internal projects. They hope to be the next place you go after registering the domain for your next software project, big or small.

Tariq Krim, CEO & Founder Netvibes

Netvibes.com is a startup company created in 2005. Based in Paris, the company “specializes” in Web 2.0 applications. Netvibes is a custom home page solution, which is free and basically gives the user the ability to create a personalized page with the content they like. The can put together data feeds and services with a very simple interface with access anytime and from any computer.

Users can browse, modify, and import RSS feeds with an integrated RSS/ATOM feedreader. They can also import, download and listen to podcasts without any additional software and can even check their gmail account and stick-on web notes.

SpyMedia , Bryan Quinn, President

I covered them in a recent post following their presentation at the Silicon Valley Newtech Meetup earlier in the month.

SpyMedia is a privately funded company that offers an online market for photos, where a buyer can set a price for a photo they want someone to shoot — and sellers can set prices for the photo they want to sell. It is ideal for amateur and even professional event and news photographers, as well as citizen and cellphone journalists.

ZapTix , Christian Perry, CEO

Small venues and event organizers use ZapTix to sell their tickets online. Founded in May 2005 by Christian Perry, ZapTix empowers performance groups, organizations, companies, conventions, and individuals to sell tickets and organize events online.

It was started with $12,000 and has already earned net proceeds of $35,000.

Back to the action…

I mentioned to Sean Ness that the quality of the crowd seemed to actually improve with each event, and he responded, “It’s all about ‘initiation only.’ This way we can control the caliber of attendees and keep them relevant and conducive to more effective and meaningful connections. It’s our way of maintaining a highly qualified audience. While other events peak and lose their core audience because of a proliferation of various attendees, STIRR focuses on the attendees that matter.”

Joanne Wan and Dan Arkind – Photo Credit: FngKestrel

While trying to make my way around the room, I had the opportunity to meet and speak with several stand-out entrepreneurs, execs, and media, all of whom I believe are “people to watch” or already making a difference:

My man Stowe Boyd, goes without saying… Message
Marc Canter
Jessica Hardwick, CEO of SwapThing
Priya Ganapati, journalist at Red Herring
Ryan Olson, journalist at Red Herring
Laurence Toney, VP Marketplace Operations, art.com
Greg Narain, CEO at Social Roots
Ranvir Gujral, CEO of InsightPath
Todd Parsons, EVP Products & Services, BuzzLogic, Inc.
Vic Podcaster ( blog ), Blogger and Founder, HotFromSiliconValley
Scott Beale ( blog ), primary tentacle, Laughing Squid
Lawrence Coburn ( blog ), founder, rateitall, inc.
Julie Davidson, Principal, 30 Boxes
Mital Poddar, VP Marketing, SwapThing
Neil Kumar, Software Engineer, Yelp
Kevin Burton, Founder/CEO, Tailrank
Peter Pham, Sr. Director, Business Development, Photobucket
Joe Hurd, VP, Business Development, VideoEgg, Inc.
Jennifer Wasson, Co-Founder, Track50
Ivaylo Lenkov, CEO, SiteKreator
Khalid Shaikh, Founder & CTO, YouSendIt
Jesse Friedman, CMO, ZapTix
Shannon Clark, Founder, President, MeshForum and JigZaw

Sanford Barr

The size of the crowd, combined with the meaningful conversations I was engaged in limited my ability to connect with everyone. Those I tried to connect with, but was held back due to uncontrollable obstacles included:
Matt Marshall, VentureBeat
Jeremy Pepper ( blog ), Group Manager, Weber Shandwick
Emily Chang, Co-Founder, Ideacodes
Ethan Prater, VP Products, Jigsaw
Brian Oberkirch, Social Media Consultant, Social Media Consulting
Thor Muller, Managing Director, Rubyred Labs
Brian Sullivan, Founder, CivicEvolution (Well we met at SF NewTech)
James Hong, cofounder, HOTorNOT
Rohit Khare, Director, CommerceNet
Beatrice Tarka, CEO, co-founder, Mobissimo
Alex Vikati, Co-Founder, CastTV
Lee Diamond, Associate, Silicon Valley Bank
Dan Arkind, Co-Founder STIRR, Indico Group
Daniela Barbosa, information consultant, factiva
Lanet Khoda, Partner, LANETWORKS

Ness and friends

Interesting highlights:

Ranvir Gujral, CEO of InsightPath mentioned that they’re almost ready to go into alpha. I’ll learn more this coming week.

Vic from HotfromSiliconValley announced that he will host the podcamp west unconference in November.

Jessica Hardwick, CEO of SwapThing is rolling out a new “localized” version of the online trading service.

Khalid Shaikh, Founder & CTO, YouSendIt mentioned that after being in business for three years, with 37’ish employees, the company officially launched on the 12th.

Todd Parsons, EVP Products & Services, BuzzLogic, Inc. mentioned that the “buzz” around the company is quickly ramping up. I’m looking forward to a demo.

Stowe Boyd gave me the breakdown on the Future of Web Apps conference.

At the end of the night, I was talking with Jennifer Wasson, Co-Founder, Track50 and Jesse Friedman, CMO, ZapTix about a potential alliance between the two companies. It actually was an ideal match, track your favorite bands with Track50 and then buy the tickets when they come into town through ZapTix.

Khalid Shaikh, Joe Hurd, Jennifer Wasson, Jesse Friedman

I am taken aback just thinking about 1.7. Honestly, STIRR instantly outgrew the Whisper Lounge, so I’m eager to see what the October event holds for us. Either way, I’m looking forward to it.

If you know of any potential deals or alliances forged, have any additional information, highlights, etc., please send them along or leave a comment. Also, if we didn’t get a chance to meet, please send me an email at pr2point0@gmail.com .

Links: For pictures from the event, click here to jump to the Flickr photo stream.

Digg This!

Tags: STIRR , 30boxes , , Clickfacts , Michael Caruso , devjavu , Jeff Lindsay , netvibes , Tariq Krim , spymedia , Bryan Quinn , Zaptix , Christian Perry , Stowe Boyd , Jessica Hardwick , Swapthing , Priya Ganapati , Red Herring , Ryan Olson , Laurence Tony , Art.com , Greg Narain , Social Roots , Rafe Needleman , CNET , Ranvir Gujral , InsightPath , Todd Parsons , Buzzlogic , Vic Podcaster , hotfromsiliconvalley , Scott Beale , laughing squid , Lawrence coburn , rateitall , Julie davidson , neil kumar , yelp , kevin burton , tailrank , peter pham , Photobucket , jue hurd , videoegg , jennifer wasson , track50 , sitekreator , Khalid shaikh , yousendit , Shannon clark , meshforum , jigzaw , matt marshall , venturebeat , Jeremy pepper , Emily chang , ideacodes , ethan prater , brian oberkirch , marc canter , thor muller , rubyred labs , brian sullivan , civicevolution , james hong , hotornot , rohit khare , commercenet , Beatrice tarka , mobissimo , alex vikati , casttv , lee diamond , siliconvalleybank , dan arkind , inidco group , Michael arrington , techcrunch , Daniela barbosa , factiva , futureworks , Sanford barr , sean ness , brian solis , web2.0 , web 2.0 , briansolis , vc , venture captial , newtech , meetup