I will certainly consider what you say, though, because I just started a Facebook Page (facebook.com/danieljamesgreene) and I want to add some of my “best” photos (art photos, landscapes, portraits, etc.; not just party or vacation photos) to my Page. And I do have a lot of photos from Flickr on my blog, so there’s that. Anyway, thanks for the post.

Also, I'll reemphasize that the whole point of this exercise was that
I really, really loved their outdoor ad. That's the post I started to
write. But when I peeled away the onion, that ad was just sitting out
there on an island.

As I said, their Facebook page isn't that bad, and there are about 25
million companies that are doing worse social media than the T-Wolves.
At the same time, this is not a local dry cleaner. This is an NBA
franchise that quite clearly is promoting their social media presence
on the home page of their Web site.

I'm responding via email, and don't have the post in front of me, but
I'm pretty certain I never said these guys sucked. But that they were
leaving a lot of easy improvements and synergies on the table, and
they are. They could make this program a lot better with almost zero
expense. It just requires coordination of efforts, which they clearly
lack. And they are by no means alone. And that's what's frustrating.
Getting your internal folks on the same page doesn't require skills,
or budget, or social media ninjaness. It requires hustle, an
understanding of the social ecosystem, and desire. That shouldn't be
unattainable for anyone.

Would you hire someone after they “slammed” you on their blog?

Wouldn't you say that many companies feel that doing any social media is better than none at all? As such, they do stuff like this, that isn't as effective as it could be.

In your estimation, is it worse to do nothing or to do something like this?

I'm not trying to rain on your Saturday, but as someone who grows tired of constant agreement in my own blog comments, I thought I'd offer the other side of the argument here.

Would you hire someone after they “slammed” you on their blog?

Wouldn't you say that many companies feel that doing any social media is better than none at all? As such, they do stuff like this, that isn't as effective as it could be.

In your estimation, is it worse to do nothing or to do something like this?

I'm not trying to rain on your Saturday, but as someone who grows tired of constant agreement in my own blog comments, I thought I'd offer the other side of the argument here.

I don't believe I'm holding the T-Wolves to a particularly high
standard here. If you're going to show people a logo, have a presence
on that site. If you're going to have a bunch of videos, make use of
them. If you're going to launch a marketing campaign, make it universal.

To me, that's not social media elitism at all. It's really fundamental
marketing principles, just viewed through a modern, social media
marketing prism.

I don't believe I'm holding the T-Wolves to a particularly high
standard here. If you're going to show people a logo, have a presence
on that site. If you're going to have a bunch of videos, make use of
them. If you're going to launch a marketing campaign, make it universal.

To me, that's not social media elitism at all. It's really fundamental
marketing principles, just viewed through a modern, social media
marketing prism.