Any company in the world that is doing business right now already knows that the Internet can make or break them. By offering your goods online, you’re quadrupling, or more, your chances of selling whatever it is you’re offering.

In the nineties there was a mad dash for companies to simply “get online” by putting up a website. The idea of “If you build it, they will come” became commonplace for companies. Just buy a domain name, pay a kid to whip up a website, and profit. That might have worked for some, but in this evolved digital age, that’s simply not cutting it anymore.

There are tons of ways to get an edge when selling your goods or services online, and a lot of them will require someone at your company being extremely social. Just like you wouldn’t have a wallflower talk to people who walk into your physical store, you wouldn’t want someone speaking to potential customers on your behalf who well…don’t like people.

Communication is the crux of every hot trend online right now. People go crazy for it. No longer is it acceptable to have to make a phone call to inquire about something you’re interested in; we fully expect to be able to tweet, post on a Facebook wall, or email a company about what has caught our attention. If we don’t get that response quickly, we’ll move on to another seller.

How can communication double your business and make the difference between selling a few things and a lot of things? First, you must have faith in the system of how things are going on around you. Huge companies are setting up a more social customer service department to “close the deal” online.

Three types of communication that can unlock a whole new world

Proactive socialization

Your company should be on Twitter, Facebook, Google+ and other social services. You should be watching and reading what people are saying about your products and brands and responding appropriately. This is probably the most impactful form of communication you can do right now. Be careful though, there is such a thing as “over-communication”.

When someone is saying nice, or not so nice, things about your company or product, you should totally reach out to that person on whatever network they’re using and discuss things with them in an open and transparent way. This scares a lot of companies, who would much rather get the person on the phone to discuss the matter. That’s a bad move, because displaying this type of open communication impresses other potential buyers who come along and check out your social network presence.

Don’t over-communicate by sticking your nose where it doesn’t belong. If you sell paper towels and someone is talking about a competitor of yours, don’t jump in and try to grab their business.

Pre-sale

You’d be surprised by how many people actually use chat systems on their website to offer real-time communication with a customer support person. Services like LivePerson allow your staff to provide an open line of communication with prospective buyers. If someone gets stumped about something, being able to ask a question, much like you would in a story, is the difference between the person following through and paying or simply going somewhere else.

Services allow you to be proactive, but not annoying, by letting your web visitors know that you’re there to help. Even if they don’t use the service or need your help, just knowing that it’s available is impressive and appreciated.

Post-sale

Just because someone purchased something doesn’t mean that you don’t have to communicate with them anymore. In fact, some of your most impressive communication should happen post-sale. Letting someone know the status of their order or what other items that they might be interested in is a sure-fire way of doubling your business.

If someone has a great experience with you, they’ll come back and tell their friends to do the same. Amazon is amazing at communicating the post-sale process with its customers. The company tells you when your item has been shipped and slips in other items that you might be interested in. It’s a welcomed interaction since you just spent money with them.

Keep tinkering

No matter what type of communication you’re doing online, track the results that you see. Did a specific tweet cause a spike in sales? Did posting photos of special items on Facebook cause them to move out the door quickly? Pay attention to both your wins and your losses when it comes to communication because all of those learnings translate into your company “voice”.

Zappos, which later sold to Amazon, prided itself on treating customers with extra special care. Be it online or on the phone, the company always comes off as approachable. The lines of communication are open.

If you’re a business owner, just think about the type of experience that you enjoy when shopping. Do that. Ask your employees to think the same way, because communication pays dividends, and when someone ends up not buying from someone, it’s usually because they didn’t enjoy the experience that they had – and that is usually due to a failure to communicate.

Interacting with people online has progressed over the years in many ways. Back in the day, chatting with someone over a computer who was thousands of miles away was state-of-the-art. As with most technology, the application for communicating over the Internet was solely for socializing. As the the technology became more advanced and secure, businesses jumped on board.

The thought of chatting with someone over video was something we only saw in Star Trek until webcams became popular. I remember running out to the store and buying my first with the hopes of seeing new friends “face to face”. My first video conversation was with a friend of mine who was all the way in Minnesota. I was in Philadelphia at the time. I set up my cam, made sure that I had the best lighting and away we went.

It was awesome, we waved our hands around and my buddy made obscene gestures. Joy of joy, this was the future. And then the conversation was over and the novelty wore off quickly. It took six more weeks for me to fire up my webcam again. The conversation was much the same and it was with a friend who just got their own webcam. The result was much the same, the novelty wore off quickly and we resumed chatting online in the way we had been previous to the webcam.

The current state of online video meetings

Again, mostly because of people wanting to socialize, online video meetings have gotten fancier and even more mobile. Huge companies are now embedding video services in their mobile devices, and commercials show off how great it can be for a grandfather to interact with their grandchild for the first time over the device. There’s that sense of novelty again, though.

Sure, for couples who are miles apart, face to face video meetings are a lifeblood. For my friends who are based overseas in the military, being able to see their loved ones once a week keeps them going. For that very use case, companies will continue to push the boundaries when it comes to online video conferencing.

However, what’s the current business case for online video? Usually it’s used as a last resort when people can’t be in the same place at the same time. More often than not when I’m pitched on meetings with startups, they still want the in-person meeting and the online video session is only used as a last resort.

This says one thing to me; we still haven’t adopted online video as an actual “face to face” meeting. Even though there isn’t usually a lot of touching and feeling going on during an in-person meeting, people still want to be able to know that they have your absolute undivided attention. When you’re chatting with someone online, you have no idea what’s going on in the background or on their computer screen.

I am seeing more companies adopt online video for meetings, since the number of businesses who have multiple offices scattered throughout the world are increasing. It’s still seen as second preference though, as developers are still being hired to work in an office. Sometimes, these developers throw some headphones on and never talk to another soul unless it’s time for a meeting. Why do they need to be there in person? Because that’s the “norm” and what we’re used to. People are “absent” unless they’re right there in front of you.

The difference between real-time and right-now

Online video meetings are seen as “right-now” or on-demand practices. You might hear someone at your company say “John isn’t here today, so we’re going to bring him up on video”. You’ll then hear some huffs and puffs or groans, because if you’re there in person, then everyone else should be, right? That’s the way some people still see these meetings, unfortunately.

For companies who are progressive in adopting online video as a means to interact with colleagues or partners, I’ve seen screens set up in offices that stay on all of the time. This is the type of real-time interaction that we’re used to in the workplace. At these companies, having a camera on in their satellite office isn’t intrusive at all, it’s quite normal. For these companies with multiple offices, an engineer can holler to a colleague about an issue they’re having in real-time without having to set up a camera or start a “call”. It’s the same as being in the same place, because in a way they are.

If you stretch your imagination to the point and tell yourself that if you’re all working at the same company on the same things, you’re all “in the same place”. It doesn’t matter where you are physically, it’s a mental thing. Some people are more effective when they work off-site, while some need to see other human beings around them. It’s a matter of choice, and as long as they’re getting their work done it shouldn’t matter.

The future of online video meetings

While some companies are starting to talk about robots and hologram technology, which can put you in more than one place at the same time, this isn’t the type of future I think of when it comes to online video.

Before we get too fancy, we need new tools that fit our needs personally and professionally, as well as push ourselves to adopt the notion that we all can’t be in the same room at all times. It’s not feasible, nor does it really matter at the end of the day. If the most talented person in the world wanted to work for your company and they lived thousands of miles away, forcing them to pack up and move just isn’t the way the future is going. Talent comes first, your personal comfort level as a company should come last.

Another thing that I think of when it comes to the future of online video meetings is real-time translation. Imagine being able to talk to a potential business partner in Japan from the United States and the software translating both ways in near real-time. Without the need of someone acting as a translator, these conversations could become more personal and fluid. Without a third-party human being involved, more deals could get done.

We have got used to the notion that a big business deal has to end in a physical handshake. In the future, it won’t.

I suspect that always-on video cameras will become commonplace for companies who have satellite teams and workers will become used to interacting with each other whenever they want with them. When this becomes the “norm”, there will be no such thing as working “virtually” anymore, which is always a term that tripped me up. If you’re working on the same thing, it doesn’t matter if you’re in the same room or building or city. You’re not virtual, you’re “there”. The physical aspect of it will become semantics.

Once we fully adopt the notion that the world is a smaller place thanks to technology, then we can get into cool bells and whistles with technology. Until then, adoption is the future and the future should be now.

With the Holiday season arriving fast, it’s time to step back and think about others who are less fortunate. With all of the commerce happening online, it’s a perfect time for big companies to start Social Good campaigns to get gifts to those who can’t afford them. Social commerce site eBay has teamed up with Toys for Tots for the “Give-A-Toy Store” campaign.

Toys for Tots has been in operation since 1947, and is one of the most popular organizations to donate to around the Holidays.

With the tap of a button on your mobile device, you can give a gift to someone who deserves it.

Cheief Marketing Officer of eBay North America, Richelle Parham, had this to say about the “Give-A-Toy Store” initiative:

This holiday season, we’re giving people an innovative way to window shop for good that will benefit Toys for Tots. We’re leveraging our mobile technology to power The Give-A-Toy Store, which offers a differentiated, interactive experience for shoppers who wish to give using their smartphone.

You can donate anything from $2 to $25 for popular toys via eBay’s mobile app.

This isn’t just a mobile experience, as there is a physical Give-A-Toy store in New York City at 35th Street and Broadway near Herald Square, in addition to a location at 117 Post Street in San Francisco. You can even scan custom QR codes to automate the donation of your toy of choice. The QR codes cause the toys to animate, bringing you a feel-good experience when making a donation.

Here’s a video from the company, explaining the initiative:

If you’re not in NYC or SF, you can simply go to eBay’s “Give-A-Toy” website and donate there.

On Facebook, eBay is allowing its fans to customize toys, and $1 will be donated to Toys for Tots for every toy customization, up to $50,000.

Download the eBay mobile app today, visit the website, or visit one of the stores physically to make your donation. You could turn a child’s Holiday into an amazing experience, just by doing some Social Good online with eBay.

➤ “Give-A-Toy Store”

Digital music has transformed year after year since Shawn Fanning brought us Napster in 1999. The service allowed you to easily download music in MP3 format that you hadn’t paid for. Needless to say, the record industry wanted to shut it down immediately. It took them two years to do so.

By 2001, the “damage” was done. People realized that they shouldn’t have to pay over ten dollars to buy a CD for a song or two that they wanted to listen to from time to time. The record labels completely missed the point, and so did the outspoken band Metallica. Thousands of artists, mostly independent, saw the power that Napster brought to us. On demand music listening and sharing could indeed generate revenue. In near real-time.

Spotify vs. iTunes

iTunes was groundbreaking, there is no doubt about it. On January 9, 2001, Steve Jobs stood on stage and announced a virtual “store”, where you could pay only .99 cents per track. You could listen to a thirty-second preview of the song, so you no longer needed to waste money on an entire album. iTunes was the “happy medium” that record labels finally settled for after Napster upended the industry.

Steve Jobs could tell record labels that its music could be pirated and shared freely, or sold on a track by track basis on a platform of which the world has never seen. This could give control back to the record labels. He won and so did iTunes.

On demand vs. pay for play

What Napster uncovered was that people didn’t want to buy albums or tracks, they wanted to listen to music at the exact moment that they wanted to. They didn’t want to drive to a store, wait in line, and find out that 75% of the album sucked. Consumers heard a song on the radio and wanted to hear it over and over again. On demand.

Of course, people were doing this for free, and there’s no doubt that a lot of money was lost for artists during the hey-day of Napster. But bands like “Dave Matthews Band” has always adopted freely distributing its music, allowing fans to record and share music from its live shows. That band and many others realized that if people could listen to music when they wanted, and easily, they would buy more tickets and T-Shirts, as well as spread the word about their band.

It was almost a trade-off. Take our music, but if you love it, tell the world about it. It was a smart bet.

The state of online music

Numerous music services have seen the light of day since Napster was released. Napster is actually still alive and owned by Best Buy. Amazon sells MP3s on its site, even Wal-Mart has its own service. Pandora has taken the world by storm with its streaming music based on the Music Genome Project. But nothing beats the on-demand listening experience. Searching through an infinite database for that track that caught your ear or makes you remember a moment in your life is powerful. Spotify knew that, and Spotify has implemented it perfectly.

Since Sean Parker had an interest in disrupting the music business, he reached out to Spotify in 2009, letting them know what he thought about the company in detail. He expressed interested in investing in them, and told them that his friend Mark Zuckerberg liked its service. Mark Zuckerberg of course has access to over 800 million users on Facebook, most of which love music. Don’t forget, Sean Parker was the President of Facebook during its early years. Facebook will most certainly see revenue from Spotify subscriptions generated leveraging its open graph.

A match made in heaven for Facebook, a match made in hell for Apple

The partnership between Facebook and Spotify makes complete sense. Spotify was smart enough to know that the desktop music experience was important, so it has stuck with having a desktop app along with its mobile app. Paying a subscription price of $9.99 lets you listen to music on your mobile device, even when you’re offline. At Facebook’s f8 conference, the two companies dropped a bomb. Full integration of Facebook and Spotify, along with a new music section on Facebook. I’m not sure iTunes can compete with this powerhouse over the next five years.

The thing that Spotify does really well that iTunes cannot compete with, is social. Spotify is built around favoriting things, creating and sharing playlists, none of which iTunes supports. Apple attempted to create its own music social network called “Ping”, but I can without a doubt call it a failure to date. Appled failed to parnter with Facebook on connecting accounts, and it was obvious to me at the time, why. Spotify. Apple can’t compete with Spotify in that when you listen to a song, and we’re friends on Facebook, I can immediately listen to that song. For no cost. iTunes would like to charge you 99 cents to listen to the song. That’s too much friction for social music. After all, music sells more music.

This is of course my opinion, but I’ve been using Spotify for a few years now and am extremely passionate about music. I’ve not once felt a close connection to iTunes, and it wasn’t always about the money. The friction and lack of innovation in socializing music made it feel sterile to me. Spotify has changed all of that.

Apple should be working on bringing iTunes up to speed, because it has felt like a dinosaur for years. Almost as much as the record player feels like now.

Napster caused a problem, and Apple solved it. It only makes sense that Spotify does it best, with Sean Parker leading the way.

The New York Times Bucks blog reports that the web-only bank BankSimple is going to launch next month in private beta. The invites should be rolled out slowly in the hundreds the company says.

There are reportedly thousands of names on the waiting list to join BankSimple, which we’ve written about before. Banksimple isn’t a standalone bank, in the traditional sense, but rather takes on the role of replacing your bank. It aims to make banking a different experience, getting rid of surprise fees while still making bill paying, budgeting and saving a priority. As BankSimple’s Adam Erlebacher explains, on the subject of surprise fees:

“If a customer were to request an international wire transfer, we would simply charge the customer what the wire transfer cost us. We don’t profit from fees.”

The service aims to help you save money to budget for travel and bills, and put a huge emphasis on customer service, something most banks lack in consumers eyes. BankSimple also wants to answer all of your banking questions, and make banking less fearful for the consumer.

Having recently moved to Portland, the company is hiring on top of an already impressive team. Adding to an already impressive team, including the original platform developer at Twitter, former Director of Finance and Administration and Board Member of Strands, Ryan Hildebrand, has joined BankSimple as Controller.

We reported on cardless bank provider Movenbank who launched in alpha this week, so this space is getting hot.

On the heels of the wedding of William and Kate, the Beatification ceremony of Pope John Paul II will be streamed live on YouTube this coming Sunday.

YouTube announced on its official blog that on Sunday, May 1st, at 1:00am ET / 9:00am CET, people across the globe will be able to witness the event on YouTube’s Live browse page. The Vatican created its own channel to celebrate the late pontiff, which consists of videos that document his pontificate.

The Vatican’s own player will present the ceremony as well, which will see hundreds of thousands of people attending the Beatification ceremony in person in Saint Peter’s Square.

The live stream will end at 4:45am ET / 12:45 CET and the entire ceremony will be uploaded to the YouTube channel dedicated to the celebrant, allowing anyone a chance to witness the ceremony at their leisure.