Hi David, Thanks! I sometimes wonder if in a hundred years people will look back on outbound marketing as a brief anomaly of the TV-industrial complex. Originally "market" was a noun: a physical place and time where willing buyers came (inbound) to meet willing seller. Farmers didn't knock on your door during a family sing-song around the piano to sell you carrots. No, you sought them out. TV turned "market" from a noun to a verb meaning "to interrupt you while watching Seinfeld to tell you about the latest Toyota whether you are thinking about buying a car or not." The internet equivalent of the old farmers' market is Google (or Bing) search. Search is the moment someone is looking to fulfill a need or want. They are giving you permission to help them. That why inbound beats outbound: it gets back to "market" the noun. And that's why Google has a market cap of $184bn. (End of pontification :-) ) -- Colin

Thanks, David. We've had a lot of success with LinkedIn and I think it's because it's used for professional development. We market software tools for engineers, so there's a symbiosis with our user community: our tools are enhanced by skilled users and skilled engineers are are enhanced by our tools. In other words, without a skilled user we are just dead bits on a hard disk drive. We hosted a Group on LinkedIn so that our community can showcase their skills and develop their careers. They can tag their profiles/resumes with our tag, and attract headhunters who are looking for the skill to drive our tool. It's a win-win-win! PS Thanks also for the mention! :-)

Score! At 5AM Sunday morning Eastern we garnered an unexpected response from the head of the division we were trying to newsjack. He's based in Europe, so it was ~11AM his time. Don’t know how he found our posting so early on Sunday morning, but he did, so I chalk that one up to a success. Before the posting he didn’t know me from Adam but now he knows I’m on top of the topic! http://signal-integrity.tm.agilent.com/2012/o-is-for/#comments

Exciting.. Our entry tries to newsjack a proprietary standard (think Microsoft using Windows API to promote IE and kill off Netscape) http://circuitsassembly.com/cms/news/12481-mentor-launches-odb-solutions-alliance Here’s our "second paragraph" http://signal-integrity.tm.agilent.com/2012/o-is-for/ Let the virality begin… ;-)

Thanks, Gilbert. Wikipedia's stats are impressive. Collectively editors add about 11 million edits a month. http://m.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/technology-can-topple-tyrants-jimmy-wales-an-eternal-optimist-20111107-1n387.html -- Colin

Hi @David44357, I like your analogy of thinking of Wikipedia as being like the New York Times. No-one likes a gate-crasher. -- Colin

...looks like the person behind the King4057 Wikipedia screenname/login is David King @David44357 http://socialfresh.com/contributors/david-king/

BTW, a Wikipedia user with the screen name King4057 just pointed out to me two related topics: * CREWE: Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement - a Facebook group by PR folks who want to interact with Wikipedia https://www.facebook.com/groups/crewe.group/ * WikiProject Cooperation - help for PR folks and paid contributors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cooperation

...just noticed that someone did create an article entitled LearningRx and that it was _d_elete _b_ecause it was considered _spam_ ("db-spam" in wiki-speak) in 2007 by an administrator. Administrators on wikipedia have powers regular contributors don't have: the power to block a contributor from making damaging edits to the project, for example, and the power to delete an inappropriate page without further debate ("speedy deletion").

Terri, Given the complex and controversial nature of brain function and the fact that you are not disinterested in LearningRx, I'd recommend an indirect approach: focus on having your system evaluated in controlled studies that are published in peer-reviewed journals. I see you are doing this here: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/11/prweb8978068.htm Once the studies are complete, contributors who are knowledgable will add the info. If not, add it yourself to an appropriate page (learning, intelligence, or preferably something more specific) and flag it for a third-party COI review. Take a look at the discussion/talk page behind a controversial article to get a feel for the ebb and flow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heritability_of_IQ I don't recommend you add a page about your company yourself. It will almost certainly by deleted rather quickly. Hope this helps! -- Colin

Thanks, David. Wikipedia is indeed an interesting (and challenging) place to publish great content. Looking forward to the book deal :-)

In principle, if people like your ideas (eBooks etc.) they'll want to do business with you, and they'll contact you. But sometimes they need a little gentle follow up. #HSDebate