A couple weeks ago, I was forwarded a copy of a white paper done by Mr. Youth and Rep Nation titled "Consumer 2.0: Five Rules To Engaging Today's Consumers." The study is certainly worth a read if you're tasked with the increasingly difficult assignment of reaching a market that has grown up with new media rules. The paper focuses on five trends: Authenticity trumps celebrity, niche is the new norm, bite size communication dominates, personal utility drives adoption, and consumers own brands.

The word trust most likely conjures the feeling(s) deep down in your gut. It does mine. Typically, when I have the slightest "off" feeling, I should follow my gut instead of my head. Trust is core to this. What about brand trust? When you just read the words, what did you think? Was it belief in a brand? Maybe it's based on perception? Or perhaps you thought of brands you trust right off?

In a hyper-competitive market, competence is expected and only flawless execution is tolerable. But that's no longer enough. Today, the ultimate competitive advantage is passion.

For years, folks have talked about digital marketing becoming a data-driven world. It has certainly been one of the drivers of the online advertising marketplace; an expectation that data and data-driven insights will someday rule where relationships and gut instinct used to hold court. Well, that day is almost upon us. With Google's meteoric rise and the extraordinary overall growth of digital marketing, we are seeing a new marketing landscape emerge -- and data is certain to be a big part of it.

Of all the agency training sessions we do, the one that invariably gets the most attention and reaction is the one focused on mobile. Mobile is still a dramatically immature medium as far as content delivery is concerned, with a very small portion of the audience truly interacting with content on their phones (if you live in San Francisco, New York or Los Angeles, I'm sure you'll disagree with me -- but head away from Metropolis or the tech-hubs and you'll see what I mean). However, mobile is also the most personal and pervasive medium. During my training sessions, invariably …

Remember the first time you thought "How did people ever live without cell phones?" or "How could I have found this information without Google?" Social media has not yet demonstrated the utility to be categorized with these innovations, yet it is very quickly changing the paradigm of interpersonal communication, from a push (I call you) to a pull (You visit my MySpace). The question for marketers is this: If social media is going to achieve ubiquity as a preferred method of communication and therefore obtain a massive share of people's attention, what role can marketers play, if any?

Have we become an industry devoid of any proactive conversation? It always seems like there is a hard line in the sand drawn between buyers and sellers. Why?

We invest a lot of time nurturing relationships with reporters, including supplying interviews, insights, opinions and, sometimes, material company assets. If a journalist uses such material directly or indirectly from a company, it's common practice (and courtesy) to credit the source of that information. In pre-Internet days, sourcing the company name alone was considered fair attribution. However, a decade into the commercial Web, it's far from it! Today, where more and more news attention takes place on the Web, the hyperlink is the last mile of attribution. If they use information from a company, journalists should not only source the …

As you probably all know, Rupert Murdoch appears to be close to buying Newsday from Tribune and its new owner, Sam Zell, for $580 million. Newsday is the 400,000-circulation newspaper that dominates Long Island, New York, a major suburban market of New York City. Is Murdochnuts? What is he doing buying a big old "ink on dead trees" business for so much money, when the future is all about the Internet and Web 2.0 sites like his own MySpace, which are wrecking the future for newspapers like Newsday and its brethren?

I tried. I really, really tried. Over the last few weeks I've created many opportunities for someone to give me a definition of the term "engagement" in its marketing sense, but alas -- I've yet to be given one. The term appears destined for use in our industry for many years to come, regardless of my relative defiance against it. Since the industry has spoken and you've all decided not to vote it off the island, then it occurs to me that maybe we should come up with a definition for it.