My name is Andrew. I'm a Tiger-holic.

Over the past several weeks I have been caught in a strange vortex of slogging through the budget process for my clients' 2010 marketing plans and keeping an eye on the saga of Tiger Woods. This has proven to be quite a mess. On the one hand, I'm attempting to help a few clients thrive in a world where they no longer have a rather tight grip on the message through their advertising and media relations efforts. On the other hand, well, there's Tiger.

Each time I fire up Twitter and search for "Tiger Woods" I begin reading the posts. Every ten seconds or so, the screen refreshes and an alert leaps onto the screen saying "27 more tweets since you started searching." Then 40, then 100, then 1,000. Let it run overnight and there might be 100,000 new Tweets, all breaking down the brand of Tiger Woods into 140 character character characteristics. (The finale to that sentence was awesome. Ahhh, thank you very much.)

Every so often a tweet will occur that appears to come from someone credible -- you know, let's say TMZ.com. Or the New York Times. At that point, the cacophony of noise that is Twitter and Facebook -- known as a "meme" -- becomes news, then becomes embedded into our cultural gestalt. And in Tiger's case, the gestalt ain't that great.

Reporters of this paper and most others are increasingly using Twitter and its like to keep an eye and ear on emerging stories. I liken it to flying a Predator drone over Afghanistan from your Aeron chair at the Air Force base in Fargo. The use of social media to gather intelligence on a story isn't relegated just to seasoned reporters. In the modern age of information, all of us use our own brand of intelligence gathering to hone in on, contextualize, and substantiate or discredit information. I am certainly willing to commit to an argument with seasoned reporters as to whether or not this is truly "reporting" or intelligent news-gathering, but suffice it to say that, as a consumer, if I were to plan a vacation or purchase a new car or consider going to the theater, I would go through the same process to vet brands as I would to catch up on the dalliances of Tiger Woods.

So guess what just happened? All of that chatter, all of those intimate details from consumers about brands, all of those stories -- the good, the bad, and the ugly -- are now becoming a core function of Google. (Must reads here, here, and here. Actually, this was a giant week at Google with the launch of Google Suggests, Chrome updates, and Real-Time Search.) Whether they asked for it or not, brands just got enormously intimate with their customers. In the very near future, any search for your brand will include chatter about you, stemming from the keyboards, video cameras, and picture phones of your consumers, your fans, and your enemies. If you're loved, you're in luck. If you've got "issues," prepare thyself.

We're entering into a permanent state of brand intimacy. Frankly, I'm concerned. I still see brands of all shapes and sizes continue to struggle with Web 1.0, not even culturally close to the change necessary to thrive and prosper in this emerging age of intimacy. For those brands who can embrace brand intimacy go the fruits of real-time and collaborative product development, real-time and very public customer service opportunities, and real-time and very rapid sales inertia as happy consumers share with others their love of a new gadget or new game or new service or new < insert any product here >. For those brands who cannot make the adjustment to this real-time market, once again, be prepared.

As old man Dickens once wrote, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times."

For those of you counting, since I began writing this post there have been exactly 2,011 tweets about Tiger Woods. I've got some catching up to do.

Today's post is the first in a series where we uncover the essential areas where organizations of all types need to change how they do business to accommodate and excel in the digital world.

Much talk has been made about the transition companies are making from traditional media to the online world. This migration has been taking place for the past 15 years and some organizations have moved well and others have moved much too slowly in relation to where their own customers have moved.

This week I heard from a client a very interesting viewpoint. She told me that she's not satisfied making a "shift" in her department but a total "transformation." She's right. That's exactly what's needed at this time. A simple shift in marketing is what many companies have done -- moved budget from one media to another. This shift, while on paper may seem consequential based upon a storied history within a certain beloved media (say, television), is only a simple beginning. In fact, many businesses realize all too quickly that simply moving dollars from traditional media to the Internet often brings about a whole new set of challenges, from needing to establish a diverse set of contact points for interested consumers to training a sales team to field a new set of more-informed questions, and perhaps dozens more. They find themselves unprepared.

The digital marketplace touches each and every part of an organization. My client was right in saying she needs to make a transformation in her company. In my daily work, I find myself spending more time with leaders solving organizational and personnel development issues than classic marketing concepts. Organizations that can rally around how they need to make the fundamental internal changes necessary to accommodate the complex needs of the digital consumer will win faster.

I know. People are tired of hearing this. Business is tough enough under current conditions. Throw on top of all of the other business challenges a consumer who has fundamentally changed how he or she prefers to consume media, interacts with brands, and shares her frank and honest experiences with one another, and, well, you've got a lot of pressures to perform. The problem is that I can't find an alternative for you. There appears to be no turning back towards a more confined and less complex media environment. Take a look at this video to see a rather stark reality.

The rosy picture? Those companies making their own transformations to the digital world are finding a new reality, one that is rooted in transparency and accountability (wait...this is good? Yes!). They are finding a market where customer relationships are more honest and intimate, where each has a voice and something to learn. These organizations become increasingly nimble and innovative, preparing themselves with confidence for the next wave of new media and ways to interact with their market. They recognize that "shifts" happen everyday; one moves resources and budget according to the shifting needs of their customers as indicated through the solid metrics and analytics methodology and measurement technology they're using.

Finally, all of this occurs because strong, digitally engaged leaders are at the helm, listening intently to the market and making strategic adjustments that their teams can galvanize around. I wrote about this last week in Minnesota Business. These are leaders who have realized that, even though this digital marketplace may be entirely different than what they learned earlier in their careers, it's reality, it's now, and it's their and their companies' futures.

Hang on for a great ride.

Next Post: Know What You Can Know - Discovering Where You Are and What's Possible

This post is a more practical viewpoint from my previous post on the rise of the so-called "social media guru." Unfortunately, there's no certification process so anyone with a Facebook page and Twitter account can call themselves a social media guru. This means it's been up to companies to fend for themselves when selecting a partner. Your social media strategy may be one of the most important elements in your overall marketing and communications plan, so you're probably taking it very seriously. Let these five questions help you navigate a rather squishy world.

1. "Do You Have Clients?"
I know. This seems obvious. But you'll find a lot of self-described consultants out there who have done a brilliant job promoting themselves, are incredibly active using social networks for themselves, and even garnered healthy personal followings. But have they replicated this success for anyone else? Do they have actual clients? Even if the firm or person you're talking to has only a few clients in the early stages of social media maturity, that's miles ahead of someone who hasn't any at all. Why should you be the sacrificial lamb? Be sure to ask to speak to references.

2. "What's the Difference Between Having a Social Media Presence vs. Having a Strategy?"
Having a social media presence is not a strategy. Heck, in an hour I could have you up and running with a snazzy Facebook page, Twitter account, YouTube channel, and Flickr group. I could snap you all up with Delicious and Digg and Technorati. You'd be the life of the cocktail party in no time! But guess what? I haven't actually done anything for you. In fact, if I haven't asked you the right questions about your audiences, your brand, and your intended outcomes, I most likely have done you a gigantic disservice. A comprehensive social media strategy (rather than an experimental one) is a complex combination of executive direction, organizational development, human resources, legal, IT, sales, and marketing. Social media strategies are pervasive, touching many if not most areas of a business, as many companies have found out the hard way.

3. "Are You Going to Ask Me About My Larger Objectives?"
This follows onto the last question. A good marketing firm or consultant should challenge why you think you need to have a social media presence in the first place. Sure, most likely you need some blend of conversational platforms, but why? What are you hoping to accomplish? Are you looking to allow your best customers extend your brand? Are you looking to use social media to deflect incoming customer-service calls? Are you hoping for greater transparency and to even foster client relationships to the point that you are co-creating products and services? Or are you simply looking for new, more efficient ways to -- gasp -- make money? What are your larger objectives?

4. "Are You Hoping to Create Social Media Content FOR Us or TEACH Us to Sustain the Program?"
Ghost written social media content rarely works and has usually been the source of some of the most embarrassing social "outing" debacles. Ongoing retainers are better used for measuring social media successes, sharing best practices, and finding and delivering deeper market intelligence through analytics. Social media's biggest hurdles are typically organizational and cultural ones. A successful social media strategy is one whose owner understands and has embraced the fact that people from within the company are the best participants. I have yet to find a mature social media strategy that was outsourced.

5. Finally, "How Will Our Social Media Strategy Complement Our Overall Customer Experience?"
Social media is just part of an overall customer experience. Social media does not have its own orbit. So, ask your potential partner, "What will I learn from our social media work that can be applied across all other areas of marketing -- oh, and product development! -- to make our customer experience more enjoyable, our content more accessible, and, ultimately, more conversion oriented?" A good social media firm will be able to extract insights from data they're capturing within the various social environments and leverage them to help improve both your own strategic view and tactical plans for your teams.

Receiving quality answers to these five questions will help you get into the incredibly fast-moving cycle of social media. Wasting even six months with the wrong consultant or firm can set you well behind where you ought to be. Conversely, because so many of your competitors are most likely just getting started as well in social media, the opportunity to set considerable distance between you and them is now. Go grab it!

For whatever reason people think I’m a technology guy. Because I work with the Internet? Yeah, well, I’m not a tech guy. But I am a golfer. And not a great one. I’m OK, I suppose. An 11 handicap which will make me zero money in my life, only cost me lots of money, anxiety, and heartache. A terrible habit.

So today I’m going to talk about golf technology. This topic came to me on a whim when, caught with a few free hours this weekend at my wife’s family’s cabin on the North Shore, I decided to head to Superior National Golf Course, a great and beautiful track. I’ve played it nearly more than any course in MN. This weekend, however, I hadn’t brought my clubs so I went down into the dungy basement of the old house and found a set of Ben Hogan blades and Persimmon woods. To the uninitiated this is like saying I found a Model T and decided to take it on 394 during rush hour.

First a little background as to why I thought this to be a good idea. A good friend of mine J Matt Keil is a natural golfer and athlete. We golf a couple of times a year, and he consistently kicks my butt even though he probably plays a quarter of the golf I play. In his bag is an old – and I mean OLD – Persimmon 5-Wood. It looks so out of place with a game so good. But every time he hits it it’s pure and beautiful, and the ball flight is old school – low with a slight draw. I’m envious.

Today I played golf with those types of clubs. A whole bag full. On the first tee I decide to hit the Persimmon 3-wood. The face is tiny, proving to me that the old pros are better ball strikers than current pros. There’s no forgiveness. I get lucky and hit a sweet-spot shot and the ball floats low down the right hand of the fairway and gently bends to the left, roughly 210 yards, right to the middle of the fairway. Now grant you this drive is shorter than my typical drive on a Par 4, but the ball flight is something I have dreams about. I can’t hit that shot with my current technology. I’m hooked. I can’t wait to hit that club every time I get the chance.

Next shot I’m a good 170 yards from the pin. Typically I would hit a 6-iron. With these old clubs I grab a 4-iron. I hit it pure enough, but it ends up a little short. If I were playing with typical d-bag golfers they’d laugh at a 4-iron from 170.

And then it dawns on me, what should ego have to do with the game of golf? Who cares how far the ball goes? Who cares if one pulls a 9 iron and pushes it 20 yard west of the hole, where the person who pulls the 7-iron and sticks it tight to the hole? Isn’t that what the game is about?

I think ego – particularly the male ego -- is driving golf technology innovations. “Hit it further.” “Go long.” “The Longest Ball in Golf.” Great golf courses all over the world have “gone long” and have essentially been ruined. Great golfers rarely can compete at the U.S. Open simply because they can barely get their drives to the fairways simply because of length. It’s ridiculous.

In my dreams, I’d love to see a PGA tournament that puts Augusta’s tees back to 1960’s era  length, then give the guys era-specific clubs and play a tournament. In fact, I wouldn’t mind if we spotted them a couple of generations of golf balls and gave them some 80s era Balata balls. It would be a fascinating exposition. The fact that 59-year old Tom Watson, a five-time British Open Champion, came within a putt of winning the 2009 British Open means this type of tournament would be priceless.

(The British Open awards great shot-making, one reason why Tiger Woods missed the cut. The assistant golf pro at Superior told me after I told him what clubs I was playing, “Andrew, Tiger Woods wouldn’t compete in yesterday’s game.” That’s a shocking statement. Tiger Woods? Seriously? But wouldn’t that be an incredible experiment? Give Tiger six months with 60s or 70s era clubs and balls and have him play some traditional courses from the same tees as the old pros. Wonder what would happen?)

There’s great debate in the golf world as to whether golf technology has ruined the game much as steroids is ruining baseball or doping is ruining cycling. I think it’s a legitimate argument. And, yet, I look at my own golf “career” and can tell you that my best rounds in my entire life – a pair of 75s – were achieved  using hack equipment and Top Flite XL golf balls, aka the “Rocks.” I have never matched those scores, even though I’m guilty as most golfers to falling prey to buying new (or slightly used in my case) clubs, drivers, and $50/dozen golfballs. No matter what I do, I remain an 11 handicap. I always shoot low- to mid-80s, no matter what.

Falling prey to new technology is what modern golf is all about. Even retailer Second Swing’s slogan is at least sly about it, tongue firmly planted in cheek: “It’s not you. It’s your clubs.”

That’s why we’ll never see a 60s era exhibition with Tiger Woods. The manufacturers would never do it. The USGA would love it. The fans would love it. But not the multi-billion dollar golf industry. No way. And it’s too bad. It would bring an interesting perspective to The Game, not just to the celebrity of individual players. All sports should be pure in my mind. Soccer seems like one of the purest of all. It’s a ball, position players, and a net. Baseball, equipment-wise, is but steroids – male ego – have tarnished it. Basketball is now a game of giants. Modern tennis racquets harbor so much power it makes the old Jack Kramer wood racquets – the racquet of champions – look downright Playskool.

I decided today that I’m no longer bringing my own modern clubs up north to the cabin. I found today’s round to be extraordinarily enjoyable, challenging, and charming. I can’t wait to pick up that Persimmon 3-wood. It was perhaps the sweetest feeling, most satisfying club I’ve ever hit.

Finally, I have accomplished something Tiger Woods may never achieve.