Recently TLC network launched a show called All-American Muslim to showcase average American Muslims who live in the community of Dearborn, Michigan. Kind of like the US version of our Little Mosque on the Prairie in Canada but more of 'reality' version.

Well sure enough one 'group' called the Florida Family Association (FFA) protested that Lowe's Home Improvement was advertising during this show and demanded that Lowe's remove all advertising. Surprisingly, Lowe's obliged the FFA and pulled all advertising while All-American Muslim was broadcasting on TLC.

Subsequently, all hell broke loose and Lowe's is in a very difficult situation. On one side you have people applauding and supporting Lowe's decision to pull the advertising. On the other side people who have been loyal customers are very disappointed in Lowe's decision. This one opinion piece from Time illustrates that the criticism of Lowe's actions has been fierce.

So Lowe's tried to calm things by directing people to this statement posted on their Facebook page earlier this week.

"Lowe’s has received a significant amount of communication on this program, from every perspective possible. Individuals and groups have strong political and societal views on this topic, and this program became a lighting rod for many of those views. As a result we did pull our advertising on this program. We believe it is best to respectfully defer to communities, individuals and groups to discuss and consider such issues of importance. We strongly support and respect the right of our customers, the community at large, and our employees to have different views. If we have made anyone question that commitment, we apologize. Thank you for allowing us to further explain our position."

That should have been the end of the issue, right? Not quite. The aforementioned post on Lowe's Facebook wall generated over +3600 Likes and +18,000 comments many of which were very nasty. I don't have a problem with people taking opposing viewpoints on an issue as that is a hallmark of democracy and freedom of speech. I do have a problem with the disappearance of civilized discourse and debate.

And now the toothpaste is out of the tube and we need cleanup in all aisles. Lowe's is going into the critical holiday period as a retailer and many customers are now calling for a boycott of their business, returning purchases and/or cancelling their accounts. Many customers who are Muslim are in that key target market that home improvement retailer like Lowe's covets.

But the outrage isn't only limited to Muslim customers as Christians, Jews and even Atheists are condemning Lowe's for their actions. You really have to feel for Lowe's being in such an untenable position.

And what kind of online public relations nightmare would it be without user-generated content? A parody Lowe's Global PR Twitter account was created and a Republican Congressman from California started following it believing it was a real Lowe's Twitter account, tweeting them he supported Lowe's actions.

The actor Kal Penn of Harold & Kumar fame tweeted this 'video' (caution on language) of his parents having a meeting with Lowe's executives to his +100k followers on Twitter. He then asked his followers to sign an online petition demanding that other brands advertising on TLC do not follow the example of Lowe's.

So far the online petition has over 21k signatures but other brands like Green Mountain Coffee have taken notice and made it clear that they disavowed the actions of FFA. Russell Simmons has stepped up and bought all of the advertising slots on TLC during the show that were vacated.

It doesn't stop there either. Lowe's has now been threatened by the hacker group Anonymous which has has already gone after the FFA website and said Lowe's is next.

Some media pundits have suggested that Lowe's shouldn't have advertised with such a potentially 'controversial' television show in the first place. Lowe's should have shown better judgement while conducting their media buy. But 'controversial' by whose standards? So could the hit television-show 'Modern Family' being targeted and having its advertising pulled because it features a gay couple? It's a slippery slope for marketers fraught with danger.

Having said all that, my view is that any company (including Lowe's) has the right to advertise where and how they see fit. Just as I have the right to shop where I see fit and to share my thoughts with other consumers. I'll also state that I've been a long-time Lowe's customer as they have offered terrific service over the years.

One friend of mine wonders if Lowe's reaction to pull the advertising was honest or out of fear of losing customers who supported the FFA. Perhaps they gambled thinking that caving into the demands of one group wouldn't have mattered. Ultimately no one is a winner in this situation except for TLC who might get better ratings/awareness.

But the bigger issue for marketers and brands is this - if this can happen to Lowe's could it happen to you? Are you or your agency prepared for this kind of situation? Do you have contingency/engagement/crisis plans in place? If so, are they good enough? If you make decisions, is digital and social media considered as it relates to them? Can you be held hostage to the agenda of a specific interest group? If you were Lowe's what would you have done differently to avoid being caught in the midst of a public relations firestorm? If you make a decision are you prepared to stand by it and not backtrack even when it impacts your reputation/bottom line?

There are no 'all-in-one' answers like some tool found in aisle 12 but the aforementioned are just a few of the questions we must ask ourselves as individuals and leaders of brands and organizations. I can already see Lowe's as a case study that students in business schools will analyze for years to come.

Lowe's tagline is 'Never stop improving' perhaps we should all pause and take heed of those words.

Sulemaan Ahmed
Twitter @sulemaan

Recently TLC network launched a show called All-American Muslim to showcase average American Muslims who live in the community of Dearborn, Michigan. Similar to a US version of Little Mosque on the Prairie in Canada but more of 'reality' version.

One 'group' called the Florida Family Association (FFA) protested that Lowe's Home Improvement was advertising during this show and demanded that Lowe's remove all advertising. Surprisingly, Lowe's obliged the FFA and pulled all advertising while All-American Muslim was broadcasting on TLC.

Subsequently, all hell broke loose and Lowe's is in a very difficult situation. On one side you have people applauding and supporting Lowe's decision to pull the advertising. On the other side people who have been loyal customers are very disappointed in Lowe's decision. Time is one of many media outlets critical of Lowe's actions.

So Lowe's tried to calm things by directing people to this statement posted on their Facebook page earlier this week.

"Lowe’s has received a significant amount of communication on this program, from every perspective possible. Individuals and groups have strong political and societal views on this topic, and this program became a lighting rod for many of those views. As a result we did pull our advertising on this program. We believe it is best to respectfully defer to communities, individuals and groups to discuss and consider such issues of importance. We strongly support and respect the right of our customers, the community at large, and our employees to have different views. If we have made anyone question that commitment, we apologize. Thank you for allowing us to further explain our position."

That should have been the end of the issue, right? Not quite. The aforementioned post on Lowe's Facebook wall generated over +3600 Likes and +18,000 comments of which many of which, were very nasty. I don't have a problem with people taking opposing viewpoints on an issue as that is a hallmark of democracy and freedom of speech. I do have a problem with the disappearance of civilized discourse and debate.

It appears the toothpaste is out of the tube and cleanup is needed in a few aisles. Lowe's is going into the critical holiday period as a retailer and many customers are now calling for a boycott of their business, returning purchases and/or cancelling their accounts. Many customers who are Muslim are in that key target market that home improvement retailer like Lowe's covets.

The outrage isn't only limited to Muslim customers as Christians, Jews and even Atheists are condemning Lowe's for their actions. You really have to feel for Lowe's being in such an untenable position.

Furthermore, what kind of online public relations nightmare would it be without user-generated content? A parody Lowe's Global PR Twitter account was created and a Republican Congressman from California started following it believing it was a real Lowe's Twitter account, tweeting them he supported Lowe's actions.

The actor Kal Penn of Harold & Kumar fame tweeted this 'video' (caution on language) of his parents having a meeting with Lowe's executives to his +100k followers on Twitter. He then asked his followers to sign an online petition demanding that other brands advertising on TLC do not follow the example of Lowe's.

So far the online petition has over 21k signatures but other brands like Green Mountain Coffee have taken notice and made it clear that they disavowed the actions of FFA. Russell Simmons has stepped up and bought all of the advertising slots on TLC during the show that were vacated.

It doesn't stop there either. Lowe's has now been threatened by the hacker group Anonymous which has has already gone after the FFA website and said Lowe's is next.

Some media pundits have suggested that Lowe's shouldn't have advertised with such a potentially 'controversial' television show in the first place. Lowe's should have shown better judgement while conducting their media buy. But 'controversial' by whose standards? So could the hit television-show 'Modern Family' be at risk and have its advertising pulled because it features a gay couple? It's a slippery slope for marketers fraught with danger.

Having said all that, my view is that any company (including Lowe's) has the right to advertise where and how they see fit. Just as I have the right to shop where I see fit and to share my thoughts with other consumers. I'll also state that I've been a long-time Lowe's customer as they have offered terrific service over the years.

One friend of mine wonders if Lowe's reaction to pull the advertising was honest or out of fear of losing customers who supported the FFA. Perhaps they gambled thinking that caving into the demands of one group wouldn't have mattered. Ultimately no one is a winner in this situation except for TLC who might get better ratings/awareness.

But the bigger issue for marketers and brands is this - if this can happen to Lowe's could it happen to you? Are you or your agency prepared for this kind of situation? Do you have contingency/engagement/crisis plans in place? If so, are they good enough? If you make decisions, is digital and social media considered as it relates to them? Can you be held hostage to the agenda of a specific interest group? If you were Lowe's what would you have done differently to avoid being caught in the midst of a public relations firestorm? If you make a decision are you prepared to stand by it and not backtrack even when it impacts your reputation/bottom line?

There are no 'all-in-one' answers like some tool found in aisle 12 but the aforementioned are just a few of the questions we must ask ourselves as individuals and leaders of brands and organizations. I can already see Lowe's as a case study that students in business schools will analyze for years to come.

Lowe's tagline is 'Never stop improving' perhaps we should all pause and take heed of those words.

Sulemaan Ahmed
Twitter @sulemaan

Perhaps it's because I'm writing this on a MacBook Pro. Perhaps it's because we have over a half dozen Apple devices in our home. Perhaps it's the way I see my 3 year old daughter effortlessly using an iPad and technology without a second thought. Or perhaps I still remember when I first used a computer (Apple IIE) and how it was a moment of 'child-like wonder'.

I'm sure you have heard, Steve Jobs the founder of Apple and until recently its CEO, passed away yesterday due to the scourge of cancer. He left behind a wife and young family. He also left behind a legacy as an innovator and someone who demanded excellence. Someone who never contented himself or his company with the status quo.

Indeed I had the privilege to work at Apple but I only saw him once from a distance when I travelled to headquarters in Cupertino, California. But let me tell you that you felt his presence throughout the Apple and it was firmly ingrained within the company DNA.

Words that come to mind as it relates to Steve Jobs and Apple as a former employee? Excellence. Drive. Innovation. Marketing. Simplicity. Financial Performance. Ruthlessness. Secrecy. Vision.

Now I'm not about to suggest that Steve Jobs was perfect. But really who amongst is? He was no deity but one would be naive to deny the tremendous impact Steve Jobs had on marketing, technology and perhaps our society at large especially in the past decade.

Whether it was the founding of Apple. Being later unceremoniously removed from the very company he founded. Returning back to Apple to help it rise like a phoenix from the ashes and the precipice of bankruptcy. Taking Pixar Studios to the next level and making it a blockbuster company in terms of computer animation. Steve Jobs consistently made his mark.

Steve Jobs took an almost bankrupt company (with financial help from Microsoft) and made it one of the largest companies in terms of market capitalization on the planet. He did so by launching innovative and revolutionary products such as the MacBook, iPod, iPhone and iPad. Each of which significantly raised the bar in terms of the quality of products that companies in the consumer electronics industry produced. Each also severely disrupting other established industries such as music and entertainment.

So here's to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The trouble-makers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. Like Steve.

Sulemaan Ahmed
Twitter @sulemaan

I recall when the economy was 'good' and I'd receive dozens upon dozens of qualified resumes. Ones that actually met the hiring criteria and didn't have any grammatical errors, typos or inappropriate profiles on social networks. (Yes, any employer worth their salt is going to Google candidates, check them out on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook.)

But even with sufficient filtering a hiring manager will still be overwhelmed in a tsunami of resumes. So what do job seekers do? How does one differentiate themselves? How does one stand out from the crowd? What can they do that is innovative?

A friend of mine, Heidi Jackman, is the CMO at Sliderocket. The company was founded in 2007 with the simple goal of building better presentations because we all know how painful some visual presentations can be.

Heidi recently forwarded me an terrific story. Where an aspiring job seeker by the name of Hanna Phan put forward her intent of looking for position at SlideRocket. But she didn't do via resume. Take a look here or below.

Pretty impressive. As Heidi aptly commented "This is both such a great story, an amazing show of creativity and a bright spot in our tough job economy."

So I'm sure it's no surprise to you that Heidi hired Hanna. Here is an explanation in Hanna's own words of why she did something different.

My point is not that everyone should use SlideRocket although I'm sure Heidi and Hanna would love it if you did.

Figure out as a leader, marketer or job seeker (agency side or client side) what you can do in a genuine and innovative way to stand out from the crowd. Odds are you can. And odds are it's not just another campaign or resume.

Sulemaan Ahmed
Twitter @sulemaan

You read correctly. A&F offered to pay Mr. Sorrentino to not wear their product. It was their view that he portrayed a negative impact on their brand based on his demeanour and behaviour on the show. A spokesperson for A&F said "Mr. Sorrentino's association with our brand could cause significant damage to our image."

It's interesting to see how A&F doesn't want a reality-television celebrity to wear their clothes or promote their brand. There is no doubt this was a deliberate marketing publicity stunt by A&F and I'm obviously not the only one to make this observation as one friend aptly noted. Needless to say many people have been discussing this news be it via own social networks and in the news.

The last time that A&F got this kind of publicity it was for another reason. And not a good one.

A&F is definitely going against the norm by asking a celebrity not to use their products. In most cases, companies would be desperate to get that kind of free publicity. It's no secret many companies pay millions of dollars for product placement in television shows and movies. Regardless of your opinion of "The Situation", there is no denying that A&F gets an incredible amount of free exposure from him that would otherwise cost a ton of ad dollars if A&F tried to run an equivalent ad campaign.

All of this is tongue in cheek of course because if A&F's request was serious about protecting their brand, their legal department would simply have to contact MTV (the producer of Jersey Shore) and told them to cease and desist. Subsequently their logos and brand would then have to be 'blurred' out in future episodes.

MTV of course wisely played along with the whole thing and didn't get their nose out of joint. So both A&F and Jersey Shore got a lot of free publicity from this move especially during the critical 'Back-to-School' phase of the calendar. Although it must be said the financial markets didn't quite respond positively to the recent fiscal results of A&F.

So perhaps we shouldn't quite yet conclude that paying celebrities to not promote a product is the new black.

Sulemaan Ahmed
Twitter @sulemaan

I'd also like to make it clear I'm not an employee of the company. I don’t own any stock in the company. Nor do I do receive any financial remuneration from the company.

What's the reason for this disclosure? Well I wanted to make that clear despite being a proponent given that LinkedIn has recently been in the news about their social ads. What happened was that LinkedIn was automatically opting-in its +100 million users into a social advertising program.

The way the social advertising worked was that when a LinkedIn user viewed a third-party advertisement on the social network, they would see others in their network who followed or recommended the promoted brands. So in a way it appears to be an endorsement of sorts.

Grab the pitchforks. Queue the outrage and threats to leave Linkedin from the commentariat on websites and blogs across the digital space. Indeed many people got annoyed by the social ads as it reminded some of the controversy surrounding Facebook a few years ago. Candidly, I first found out about this when someone I followed on Twitter flagged this blog post by Steve Woodruff which provided step-by-step instructions in how to unsubscribe from LinkedIn social ads.

Since I read Seth Godin’s Permission Marketing years ago I’ve always believed that as a best practice customers or users should opt-in to your marketing – as opposed to making them opt-out. That could have been a better way for LinkedIn where they could have avoided this controversy. However in fairness I’d also like to bring up a few points that come to mind:

(1) Years ago when Google started embeding advertising overlays in their videos, I tweeted my annoyance. I mean having the audacity to subject users to advertising! I was corrected by my friend David Jones who subtly noted “What do you expect when using a service for free?” I had to admit he was right. Doesn't the same principle apply with Linkedin? Most people use the basic service on LinkedIn which is free but as any company Linkedin has various operating, marketing and technology expenses. Revenue must come from somewhere such as advertising - especially when answerable to shareholders as a publicly-traded company.

(2) Very few people read the Terms of Service (TOS) when signing up for social networks. But LinkedIn does stipulate what happens when you sign-up for using this social network. No the TOS aren't as short and as simple as a blog post but they are there for anyone to review. So it’s not like they were nefarious and snuck something about social advertising under the cover of night.

(3) Speaking of cover of night, LinkedIn did post on their blog back in early June about changes to their privacy policy and also again in late June about their new social ads. So they were telling members what they planned to do.

(4) If LinkedIn were planning on burying this issue surrounding the issue of social ads, why would they continue to leave it on the homepage of most users and feature it as a top headline in the LinkedIn Today section? (Per screenshot below.) Does this strike you as a company trying not to be transparent?

(5) Lastly, LinkedIn quickly responded to the concerns of their members and modified some of the ‘social ads’ to reinforce that member’s trust was very important. They also showed how members could unsubscribe from social ads with one click.

Could LinkedIn have communicated more appropriately with members? Yes but beyond maybe making the service opt-in to begin with or communicating in the original blog post how people could opt-out, I’m unsure of what else people expect of them. Some have suggested LinkedIn could have emailed members but I can’t help but think some people would get outraged with spam in their inboxes.

At the end of the day LinkedIn could have improved a few things but they responded to the community. I’m also sure they learned their lesson. I don't believe one should judge based on a single error but rather what is done to correct it and ensure it doesn't repeat itself. So I won't quite be deleting my account or becoming LinkedOut from LinkedIn quite just yet.

Sulemaan Ahmed
Twitter @sulemaan

A couple weeks ago I was at an alumni event for my alma mater and it brought back memories of being in the library until the wee hours and writing my Master's thesis on email. (Yes I've been an email fanboy for a while. Stop snickering.) Years later I was part of a group of CMA members that created a Guide to Email Marketing. Download a free copy of it here.

I'll admit I've always been a proponent of email and how it can do wonders for us. Would anyone disagree with the notion that email is an integral part of our daily lives both personally and professionally?

Having said that I’ve been thinking about innovation as it applies to business, technology and marketing. And although email was a very innovative creation it can be argued it now stifles innovation. Our inboxes are filling up more and more and we’re struggling to keep pace. We don't have time to do 'work' because we are incessantly checking our inboxes. Inbox owners are losing the war. Some people have resorted to declaring email bankruptcy.

Chris Anderson of Wired and TED fame is of the view that the very purpose of email to improve our time, energy and sanity at work is now actually having the opposite effect. The reason according to Mr. Anderson isn't email itself but that most people are extremely bad at using this tool. His position is that "The total time taken to respond to an email is often MORE than the time it took to create it." I never thought about it that way before.

So Mr. Anderson created an Email Charter with input from the online community. The 10 rules in the charter are simple but could make a universal impact if widely adopted by more users out there - including myself.

Candidly, I'm guilty of some of the transgressions outlined in the Email Charter so I'm now trying to abide by it. In addition to the 10 Rules to Reverse the Email Spiral, I'm remembering two other small tips I’ve recently come across by people I respect.

1. Guy Kawasaki - Keeping emails to 6 sentences or less.
2. Seth Godin – Ask "If I had to pay $0.42 to send this email, would I?"

[If you have any thoughts, opinions or tips regarding email please add them to the discussion in the comments section below.]

The creation of email is a major technological and communication innovation but if used improperly it can be an impediment to future innovation. It can stifle productivity and waste the valuable time and resources of others. Not to mention how email can be lousy in expressing sentiment and emotion that could be better addressed in a conversation.

The last thing I want to do is contribute to the problem. So it's time to start contributing to the solution. If that means by trying to respect an Email Charter then so be it.

Sulemaan Ahmed
Twitter @sulemaan

Naturally a lot of advice regarding interviews is common sense. For example, it amazes me how many people in actual interview scenarios are asked if they checked out a company website and the answer is often 'no'. It totally blows my mind in an era of Google, Facebook, LinkedIn and other social networks but I digress.

There are many others things one can do to be prepared for an interview besides doing your homework beforehand. Be on time. Be well dressed. Be honest about your credentials and experience. Be confident. Most importantly - be yourself.

The last point is the one that I feel is really important based on my experience. In today's business world there is indeed a lot of pressure to land that coveted role. However, it is critical you be yourself during the interview process. If you present yourself as anything different you will be miserable if you land the job under false pretences. A prospective employer should hire you because they are thrilled about you. Not some contrived persona.

I'd also take it a step further - within reason - to let your personality shine through in the interview if circumstances allow it. Let me give you a personal example.

Through the gracious introduction of a friend, I interviewed for a marketing position with a company I respected. They weren't quite a start-up but more of an 'up-start'. The company has a unique interview process where multiple employees at different levels of the organization interview prospective candidates and not just the senior leadership team.

I think it's brilliant as it allows them to get a real feel for potential candidates and the candidate to meet different employees. The employees would also have to feel empowered that they are part of the selection process and have a say if a candidate is the right fit for the company. This is critical when a company's culture has been carefully fostered and cultivated over many years.

During my 3rd interview, one of the interviewers said that he was asked before the interview if he had heard of me. He said the only "Sulemaan" he had heard of was this:

Now clearly I'm not the individual in this video. My moves on the dance floor vary from gusts of awful to winds of terrible. You will never see me on a dance floor. I smiled and told the interviewer the dancer definitely wasn't me.

A few days later I had a follow-up interview with the same gentleman and his team to tie-up loose ends and outstanding questions. This time I decided to add a little spice to things. I went to a local costume store and bought a replica Michael Jackson glove.

The next interview, I waited for the right moment. I said I needed to get a pen from my bag, reached down and put on the glove on and continued to take notes like nothing unusual had happened. The interviewers were surprised and chuckled.

I smiled and said something along the lines of "I can't dance like Michael Jackson but I can wear a glove like him." The interviewers got a real kick out of that. One of them actually put the glove on himself after I took it off and started doing Michael Jackson dance move hand gestures. But let me tell you they were still very serious and asked some tough questions.

Was wearing the glove a risky move? Perhaps but after the first couple of interviews I had a pretty good idea of the culture and people at that organization. I also figured it was a good litmus test to see how people reacted to different ideas, even ones appearing way out of the box.

Now I'm not suggesting you come to an interview in a clown suit. Nor be armed with resumes printed on pink paper doused in perfume. What I am suggesting is that you use the interview process as an opportunity to interview the company as well. Ask them tough questions (in a polite and respectful manner).

What I am also suggesting is you should infuse your own personality into the interview process if you have a sense the culture and environment allows that. Better to know how people respond to it during the interview process than after signing on the dotted line.

And how did those interviews go for me? Security promptly escorted me out of the building. Kidding. I was fortunate enough to receive a generous offer. So maybe the Michael Jackson glove really did make a difference. Because it sure wasn't due to my dancing skills.

Sulemaan Ahmed
Twitter @sulemaan

The team brainstorms on ideas, creative, copy, content and concepts. Everything comes together swimmingly. And as we're in an increasingly digital world we coordinate our offline marketing efforts as part of the campaign also. Print. Televsion. Radio. Billboards. You name it. All integrated into one ecosystem.

Someone on the team then gets hit by a thunderbolt during the process. You know those moments when a brilliant idea or tagline hits you when you are in the shower – and you get a brilliant name for the campaign. It's simple, to the point and memorable. Everyone agrees the proposed tagline is brilliant. And getting consensus is difficult if not bordering on impossible with so many internal stakeholders. Creative work starts and all systems are go! Full speed ahead. Damn the torpedoes!

And then a few weeks later as you steam ahead into the wild blue yonder someone has the temerity to ask the question "Has the website domain name for the campaign been registered?" Full stop. Evasive manoeuvres! Torpedo coming straight at you.

It's very common where marketers seem to put the registration of the domain name (I.e. website address) at the very bottom of their checklist – if it's there at all. And the consequences can be disastrous.

I once worked at a company where another department was working on a major marketing campaign. Our digital team wasn't involved as the other department 'had things totally under control'. A conservative estimate was that they had spent tens of thousands of dollars in creative, development work and media buy.

They then went to register the domain name – let's call it 'lightbox.com' - two weeks before the campaign launched. Guess what? The domain name was taken. Someone else had already registered it. They tried to get the legal department involved but no dice. Their case was tenuous at best and time was a commodity in short supply. Which isn't ideal when dealing with legal issues. Not to mention the CMO basically said "Figure it out. Or someone's head will roll."

The team then tried to purchase lightbox.com because all of the promotions and advertising led back to that website address. A website address they were not in possession of. Fortunately, the team managed to purchase it 12 hours before the national campaign went live. (They also paid through their nose and the ROI objectives of the entire campaign became a little more harder for no good reason.)

My question is why? In an age where digital, social and mobile are such a critical and integrated component of marketing – why do marketers seem to leave the domain names to the very end? These days that is akin to launching a campaign without creative. You just can't do it. And whether you are on the client side or agency side – it's completely irresponsible to overlook as a marketer. And don’t cop out and say that kind of thing is the responsibility of the IT department. It’s yours.

My rule of thumb has always been, as soon as you get alignment on a name, rush to the nearest computer and register the domain name immediately. Candidly, I border on paranoia where I refuse to tell people the name because you don't want word to get out until it's registered.

"That's great advice" you say – but what happens if I don't leave things to the last minute and the domain name is already taken Sulemaan? That could very well happen. In fact it's happened to me before and these days most .com website addresses are already taken. So here are some suggestions based on my experience:

1.Try to see if the website address is expiring anytime soon. Perhaps you can silently wait and then renew it for a minimal amount. Using a domain dropcatching service like NameJet or SnapNames vastly increases your chances here.

2.Pick an alternative domain name. Or instead of using a .com address, you can go with a .ca or .co address.

3.Use an intermediary to purchase the domain on your behalf. Why get someone else to do it? Isn't that more expensive? It might add some costs but if you directly contact the owner of a domain name you want and they figure out you work for 'Big Company X' or 'Huge Agency Y' - guess what happens to the starting asking price? Think helium balloons. So for years I've used Bill Sweetman from YummyNames. He's purchased domain names I’ve coveted from $24 all the way up to six figures. He's reliable. He's honest. He knows domains better than anyone I've met.

In this increasingly digital marketing world – whether you are planning a marketing campaign, launch or promotion - don't make registering your domain name(s) the last thing you do. Make it the first. That way you avoid unnecessary torpedoes.

Sulemaan Ahmed

I don't know about you but it's tough finding a job much less your very first one. The adage we all know comes to mind. 'You can't find a job without experience and you can't find experience without a job.' Furthermore current economic conditions bring another layer of challenge into play. Times are tough and people are suffering.

When I spoke to the class I asked the question of how many of them were on various social networks. "Facebook?" "Twitter?" "YouTube?" Pretty much 100% of hands went up each time. When I asked about LinkedIn about 50% of hands went up. When I asked how many of them completed their profiles 100% on LinkedIn about only a third of hands had not fallen.

That surprised me. If you were a student looking to find a job in marketing - how could you not be on LinkedIn? It is free to use. If I was a hiring manager on the client side or agency side, I'd be questioning your capabilities. I'd expect someone graduating with a post-secondary education to be on LinkedIn. I told the students that many in my network share the same philosophy.

But my post is not to criticize George Brown College or the students there. On the contrary, I'm very impressed with the work that institution is doing to get its students prepared for the working world. Whether it be mentorship sessions or adding 'non-traditional' taught classroom skills to the curriculum that are required in today's business world. The students were very engaged and kept me back for more questions over 30 minutes after I got off my soapbox. The best part? Many of them created or updated their LinkedIn profiles afterwards. (Below is a copy of the presentation.)

This brings me to you the reader. Students may not know any better. They might figure it won't be a problem finding a job when they graduate. (I know I did.) Unfortunately there are many professionals out there in marketing, advertising, finance, accounting, operations, logistics, technology, administration and legal that are not on LinkedIn. Or they have a lousy profile completed. It totally blows my mind.

Cynics will say that LinkedIn is only beneficial to marketing, sales and 'tech' people. But if it can work for financial advisors then what is your reason not to have a profile? Some argue that LinkedIn is like other online network sites that sprout up every day and then fall by the wayside. Indeed, but how many of them have over 3 million Canadian members alone or an IPO planned?

I once recall a senior executive telling me LinkedIn was a waste. He had better things to do with his time. He didn't need to get spammed with invites. A year later there was a corporate restructuring and that executive was unemployed. Having a LinkedIn profile was suddenly no longer such a waste of time. That same executive now swears by it and is gainfully employed elsewhere. Care to guess how he found his new job?

Now I'm not on the LinkedIn payroll but I know and respect a few people who work there. The quality of a team often speaks to an organization's products and services. Most importantly I believe in the product. LinkedIn has done me a world of good over the past 6 years. How so?

1. Google my name 'Sulemaan'. On regular text results it's fine. Now Google my name 'Sulemaan' under images. Stop laughing. No I'm not related to the OctoMom. It's not that funny.

My point being that you don't know what comes up when people type in your name into a search engine. And make no mistake they do type in your name into search engines. By having a properly completed LinkedIn profile it puts your best foot forward. Usually one of the first search results that appears are either LinkedIn, Facebook and/or Twitter. (Also your blog or personal website.) If you don't believe in the importance of 'personal branding' let my Octomom experience be an example to you.

2. The average tenure in a CMO position is roughly 23 months. People change careers more frequently and it's hard to keep track. I received an email from LinkedIn in January advising that 25% of contacts in my network changed their job title in 2010. Twenty-five percent. Think about that figure for a second. LinkedIn becomes an updated online rolodex where you can keep in touch and stay up to date on the comings and goings of your network.

3. The whole concept of 6 degrees of separation comes into play. You may not know someone at company X or someone with specific skills (i.e. ability to write marketing copy in mandarin for search engine ads) but someone in your network probably does. Or they know someone who who knows someone that does. LinkedIn helps you find them. Do you know of a better way to quickly meet someone in targeted manner via a personal referral?

4. If you're going for a business pitch or interview you can leverage LinkedIn to give you information on the company and who you are meeting. You no longer have an excuse not to do your homework ahead of time. If you want to go about doing 'homework' discreetly on LinkedIn as one friend recently recounted then remember to turn off profile views & network update in your privacy settings while you research others on LinkedIn. Once completed – turn it back on.

5. Paying it forward by using LinkedIn. By helping others in need, be it those looking for work, searching for top notch candidates or facilitating introductions that create solid business partnerships/friendships you become a mensch. Guy Kawasaki describes the term as follows: "Mensch is the Yiddish term for someone who is ethical, decent and admirable. It is the highest form of praise one can receive from others whose opinions matter." Be a Mensch.

So if students have absolutely no excuse not to be on LinkedIn with a properly completed profile - what about you as a business professional? Are you in? Otherwise you are definitely out.