10 Tipps, die Ihnen helfen, Ihr Marketing-Toolkit zu erweitern.

Gewinnen Sie lokale Kunden mit Google Maps

Google verfügt über eine Vielzahl von Verkaufsstellen, die Ihren Marketingaktivitäten zugute kommen können. Aber eines, das manchmal übersehen werden kann, ist Maps. In einem kürzlich erschienenen Beitrag auf Abtechs Blog bietet Amit Chauhan einige Tipps für die Verwendung von Google Maps, um Kunden in Ihrer Gemeinde zu gewinnen.

WhatsApp Business Profile verwenden

Die beliebte Chat-Anwendung WhatsApp hat gerade neue unternehmensspezifische Profile veröffentlicht. Das bedeutet, dass Ihr Unternehmen diese Art von Technologie nun besser für die Kommunikation mit Kunden nutzen kann. Tim Peterson schreibt in einem neuen Beitrag von Marketing Land.

Lernen Sie von diesem Leitfaden für Menschen, die einkaufen.

Wenn Sie mehr verkaufen wollen, müssen Sie wissen, an wen Sie verkaufen. Hier kommen die Käufer ins Spiel. Mehr dazu erfahren Sie in diesem Einsteigerhandbuch für Adam Heitzman-Käufer im Blog des Search Engine Journal.

Übertreiben Sie nicht mit den neuesten Facebook-Nachrichten.

Die jüngste Facebook-Ankündigung eines anderen aktualisierten Algorithmus schickte Panikwellen durch die Small Business Community. Aber es kann nicht wirklich so wichtig sein, wie es scheint, argumentiert Rachel Strella von Strella Social Media. Sie können auch Kommentare der BizSugar-Community zu den neuen Änderungen einsehen.

Führen Sie eine SEO-Website-Überprüfung durch

Egal wie gut Ihre Website aussieht und funktioniert, es wird Ihrem Unternehmen nicht helfen, wenn niemand kommt. SEO kann in diesem Bereich helfen, aber Sie müssen wissen, wo Sie anfangen sollen. Um eine Vorstellung von Ihrem Ausgangspunkt zu bekommen und Bereiche für Verbesserungen zu finden, schauen Sie sich diesen Beitrag von Neil Patel an.

Verwenden Sie diese Tools, um großartige Content-Ersteller zu engagieren.

Wenn Sie Ihre Content-Marketing-Bemühungen erhöhen möchten, können Sie helfen, einige großartige Content-Ersteller einzustellen. Und Sie müssen den Einstellungsprozess nicht alleine durchlaufen. Die Werkzeuge in diesem Beitrag vom Content Marketing Institute von Catalin Zorzini können helfen.

Steigern Sie Ihre Produktivität mit diesen Anwendungen

Wenn Sie mehr für Ihr Unternehmen tun wollen, sei es im Marketing oder in anderen Bereichen, gibt es viele Anwendungen und Tools, die Ihnen helfen können. Ein kürzlich veröffentlichter Beitrag von Peter Davidson über Right Mix Marketing enthält einige Produktivitätsanwendungen, die Ihnen dabei helfen, dies zu erreichen.

Starten Sie ein kostenloses Blog

Sie haben vermutlich bereits gehört, wie viel ein Blog bei der Vermarktung Ihres Kleinunternehmens helfen kann. Aber wussten Sie, dass es auch eine sehr profitable Strategie sein kann? Mike Allton von Social Media Hat erklärt, wie man mit einer aktuellen Veröffentlichung kostenlos einen Blog starten kann. Und auch die BizSugar-Mitglieder tauschen sich über die Position aus.

Lernen Sie die Psychologie moderner mobiler Werbung kennen.

Für viele Unternehmen reicht Online-Werbung nicht mehr aus. Sie müssen mobile Konsumenten mit Ihren Werbemaßnahmen ansprechen. Und es kann helfen, die Psychologie dieser Konsumenten zu erforschen. Erfahren Sie mehr in einem neuen Beitrag von Noobpreneur von Ivan Widjaya.

Warum Donald Trump auf einen harten Brexit setzt

eu flagge

Emmanuel Macron ist 31 Jahre jünger als Donald Trump – aber die Ereignisse der vergangenen Woche lassen keinen Zweifel daran, welches der beiden Staatsoberhäupter der Staatsmann ist und welches das launische Kind.

Letzte Woche hat Trump seinen Besuch abgesagt, um die neue amerikanische Botschaft in London mit seinem üblichen Mangel an Klasse und Respekt vor der Wahrheit zu eröffnen. In dieser Woche kam das französische Staatsoberhaupt nach Sandhurst, um nicht anzuhalten oder zu pausieren, sondern um über die Sicherheits- und Verteidigungszusammenarbeit zu sprechen.

Trump hat alle beleidigt, vom Premierminister bis zur Herzogin von Cambridge, während er eine besondere Stimmung für Sadiq Khan, den muslimischen Bürgermeister von London, hat. Aber Großbritannien kann es akzeptieren: Wenn der Preis, Trump von hier fernzuhalten, darin besteht, dass es gelegentlich den Missbrauch auf Twitter in unsere Richtung zeigt, dann wäre es immer lohnenswert, dafür zu zahlen.

Die Realität sieht jedoch so aus, dass Trump keine Sekunde vor Ort im Vereinigten Königreich verbringen muss, um mit seiner Politik unsere Politik und unsere Werte zu untergraben.

Zuerst einmal wird er immer Boris Johnson und Nigel Farage als Frevler haben: Dieses Duo beeilte sich, sich auf die Seite von Trump in der Botschaft zu stellen, und im Fall von Johnson beging er viele Missbräuche gegen Sadiq Khan, weil er Londons aufrichtigen Unmut über den frauenfeindlichen, rassistischen und brutalen Weißen Haus zum Ausdruck brachte.

Aber der Hauptgrund, warum wir uns auf einen Platz unter Trump’s Daumen begeben, ist die Begeisterung, die der Präsident der Vereinigten Staaten mit der britischen Regierung für einen harten Brexit teilt.

Trump verachtet die Europäische Union, weil sie als mächtigste Einheit der entwickelten Nationen auf der Erde einen echten Einfluss auf die wirtschafts- und außenpolitischen Debatten hat.

Je schwächer die EU wird – und Trump hat Recht, wenn er meint, dass der britische Austritt aus der EU auf beiden Seiten dieses Paktes weniger Festung hinterlassen wird -, desto näher kommen wir Trumps Traum von einer neuen Weltordnung, in deren Mittelpunkt er und seine regressive Vision stehen. Für Trump ist „America First“ mehr als ein Slogan, es ist ein Spielplan für die Zukunft.

Ein geschwächtes Großbritannien außerhalb der EU wird eine Brücke zur nationalistischen Wirtschaftsaggression von Trump sein: Abgeschnitten von der kollektiven Stärke, die wir durch unsere EU-Mitgliedschaft gewonnen haben, werden wir für einen US-Präsidenten, der Handelsabkommen unterzeichnen will, eine viel einfachere Wahl sein, in denen kleinere Länder ihre souveränen Rechte gegen Krümel vom amerikanischen Tisch tauschen.

Und wir dürfen uns nicht täuschen, indem wir sagen, dass wir verhindern können, dass sich die Ansteckung auf alle Aspekte unserer Beziehungen zu unseren europäischen Verbündeten ausweitet, auch in Verteidigungs- und Sicherheitsfragen. Es ist nicht mehr wahrscheinlich, dass Trump sich für Allianzen zwischen europäischen Verteidigungsherstellern ausspricht, die bereit sind, unsere derzeitigen Verbote für gebleichte Hühner oder Rindfleisch von mit Hormonen gefütterten Rindern in einem Handelsabkommen zu akzeptieren, das er möglicherweise unterzeichnet.

Und egal wie oft Theresa May die Hände von Donald Trump hat oder Boris Johnson ihren Arsch küsst, es wird kein kommerzielles Abkommen über Dienstleistungen mit den Vereinigten Staaten geben.

Nichts davon ist unvermeidlich. Die Haltung Macrons und die Ernsthaftigkeit, mit der er die Beziehung zu Großbritannien aufnimmt, zeigen, dass Brexit zwar europäische Freundschaften forciert hat, dass sie aber nach wie vor grundsätzlich stark sind und dass jeder Schaden, der leicht zu beheben ist, behoben werden kann.

Wir könnten unsere Umwelt- und Verbraucherschutzstandards aufrechterhalten und die Launen von Agent Orange of Washington aus unserem täglichen Leben heraushalten, indem wir einen harten Brexit ablehnen und uns hinter den Schutzmauern des Binnenmarktes und der Zollunion Europas verschanzen.

Das allein wird uns stark genug machen, um dem Tyrannen mit den großen Haaren zu begegnen. Alison McGovern ist Labour-Abgeordnete für Wirral South und eine der führenden Unterstützerinnen von Open Britain.

Gefällt Ihnen dieser Artikel? Melden Sie sich für die E-Mail-Adresse von Left Foot Forward an, um die neuesten Nachrichten und progressives Feedback zu erhalten – und unterstützen Sie die Journalistenkampagne, indem Sie noch heute eine Spende machen.

Hillary Clinton Makes Me Cry

The last time Hillary Clinton told me she was going to run for President, I was thirteen, and sitting alone at my family’s kitchen table. The lights were low, and her face flickered from a small curved TV screen mounted on our wall. I cried.

In 2007, I measured feminist successes quantitatively. How many of my friends call themselves feminists? How many members of Congress are women? How many CEO’s? The numbers were low. I walked through middle school halls where words like “slut,” “fag,” and “dyke” were common vocabulary and boys sometimes snapped your bra strap or kicked you to show you they liked you. I went to movies to make out with people I didn’t like, and heard my friends talk about each other’s changing bodies like specimens ready for inspection. It didn’t feel right, but I wasn’t aware things could be different. So I counted and hoped, somewhat unconsciously, that if the numbers climbed, life would change.

Sometime around fifth grade, after developing a strong interest in politics and news, I decided I wanted to be President. In 2006, I entered an essay contest for a book called “She’s Out There: 35 Women Under 35 Who Aspire to Lead.” My essay was selected and published in the book three years later. The cover featured a photo of 14-year-old me holding an American flag, walking determinedly, lips clamped over my braces. When people talk about awkward middle school photos, I’ve always got them beat. For the next few years, I worked for a Congresswoman, snuck my way into the Democratic Convention, and sought out opportunities with groups like, that strive to get as many women into politics as possible, regardless of party affiliations. And I unquestioningly loved Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign for president was the moment that linked my life as a 13-year-old girl with my identity as a feminist. This happened less because of Clinton herself, and more due to the words of others. As soon as Clinton announced, mainstream and fringe media outlets alike began debating everything from her pantsuits, to her “frigidity,” to her cleavage. I don’t wish to recount the media’s endlessly sexist treatment of Clinton’s 2008 campaign–we should all be familiar with it. Even amongst the pro-Hillary-hype that’s monopolized the internet in the past year and a half, gendered coverage still occurs. Several weeks ago, David Remnick accused Clinton of exploiting her gender (note to Remnick: women are not the only people who do yoga). Discussions about Clinton’s age, life as a grandmother, and personal emails have raised questions that I do not believe would be asked of a man. I don’t think the question of whether she’s playing up her gender really makes sense on a theoretical or practical level.

Clinton’s 2008 campaign taught me about gender-bias in the media, but it also helped me understand gender-bias in my own life. At school, peers labeled Clinton ugly and frumpy, called her a bitch, and made ceaseless sexual jokes. Friends told me they just didn’t like her, or that she just didn’t seem cool. As a feministing-bag carrying, aspiring female leader, and loudmouth member of the debate team, I took the criticisms personally. It sounded a lot like what people sometimes said about me. In other words, Clinton inadvertently helped me learn that the personal is political.

The more I realized the pervasive sexism in nearly every conversation I had about Clinton, the more I vowed to stand by her, and the more–perhaps blindly–I grew to admire her. I weaseled my way into numerous events to have a moment with her, took a Hillary selfie before Meryl Streep did, and stood in a crowd of middle-aged women, crying once again, at her concession speech. While I wouldn’t do those same things today, my obsession with Clinton taught me crucial lessons. Clinton’s campaign for president in 2008 changed my life, and the way I view feminism, not because she almost became the first female president. It shaped me because her campaign taught me that feminism is about more than just counting. It’s about the gendered frameworks that dictate our lives, and the ways we’re viewed by others.

In those days, I was a true fangirl–never thinking too deeply about what I hailed. Of course Clinton is smart and accomplished, but the moments when I was impressed by her most were those when she addressed gender-bias. But these are not reasons for unconditional love, as I have come to realize.

Today, I can’t help but feel emotional. In the years since middle school, many of my eighth grade feminist dreams have come true. Almost everyone I know identifies as a feminist. The word is so commonly used that TIME Magazine suggested it be banned, along with slang like “OMG,” and “YOLO.” In 2011, Clinton’s approval ratings were higher than ever. But the reality of this rise in Hillary-fandom and Buzzfeed feminism has been somewhat numbing. Recently, it seems that blindly identifying as a feminist is sometimes a way out of having hard conversations, or of grappling with the ways in which we all perpetuate sexism.

Then there’s Clinton’s track record and policies, many of which are hard, if not impossible, for me to get behind. From her confusing stance on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to her generally hawkish foreign policy, her politics often do not align with my own. But I’ve also learned not to expect much more from a nominee of either major party. It’s frankly been a long time since I imagined myself in the Oval Office, as I’ve realized mainstream U.S. politics won’t provide the answers I’m looking for.

Yet for some reason, sitting in the library this afternoon, reading that the announcement had finally happened, I couldn’t help it: I cried. That’s right–a quick, shoulder-shaking sob that prompted my friend to look at me in horror, and launched me into a subsequent fit of giggles at the ridiculousness of the scene (I won’t be going back there soon). As my friend tried to comfort my sudden and phantom burst of emotion, asking me what in the world was wrong, I searched for an answer to no avail. The thing is, I’m not sure why I cried. Maybe I cried because I hate that it’s still exciting and novel to imagine a female president. Maybe I cried remembering my middle school self–a girl who spent hours defending a woman, instead of indicting a system. Maybe I cried recalling my naive hopes that bigger numbers of visible female leadership is the complete answer to the problem. Or maybe I cried because I spent so long admiring this person, and her face has become some kind of weird tear trigger–if that’s true, I’m clearly not ready for Hillary.

In the coming months, I anticipate a lot will happen, but I’m not sure I’ll be able to stomach it. The excitement of having a female candidate paired with the disappointment over her politics will be a lot to handle. I’d like to think the media coverage will be different in 2015, but a part of me is too jaded to find out. Yet distancing myself from the campaign might be hard. After all, I won’t always defend Hillary, but she’ll always make me cry.

Why Fun Home Cannot and Will Not Solve Broadway’s So-Called “Lesbian Problem”

A few weeks ago, I was browsing idly on Facebook (read: procrastinating on Greek homework) when I stumbled upon a rather confident headline: “Fun Home Could Fix Broadway’s Lesbian Problem.” The blog post, which appeared on OnStage but as far as I can tell has since been deleted, aptly noted the lack of queer women onstage and then seemed to suggest that the lack of representation could be neatly solved with one piece. I don’t doubt Fun Home’s wonderfulness (full disclosure: I have tickets but haven’t seen it yet), but that’s definitely a big burden for one show to carry. And yet, “Broadway’s Lesbian Problem,” in addition to being the hopeful title of my future autobiography, is a strange, rarely-spoken-of reality, one that parallels, I think, a larger cultural conundrum.

It’s been a good season for queer women. And I And Silence, about two young queer women in prison and afterwards, opened to positive reviews some time ago, while Bright Half Life, which charts a lesbian couple’s relationship through the years, just finished its run. Fun Home, the Pulitzer-nominated musical based on the unbelievably amazing graphic memoir of the same name by Alison Bechdel (if you haven’t read it by now, run don’t walk to Atticus), will open mid-April on The Broad Way. By many counts, 2014-2015 was one of the best years queer women have had in theatre in a long time.

Yet this season is both typical and atypical. Certainly the sheer amount of pieces about queer women is remarkable. But that two out of the three stay Off-Broadway, are intense dramas, and deal primarily with a queer relationship rather than individuals isn’t exactly groundbreaking. (At this point, the trope of queer folks appearing in media only as cute couples is, well, a trope.) Fun Home stands out in all of these regards: it’s a musical, it’s moving to Broadway, and it’s about a lesbian, singular, as well as her closeted gay father. But Fun Home, despite its desperate marketing efforts to bill the show as just another family story, is already being categorized as “cerebral” and “fascinating,” far from universal. It’s not a tourist show – it’s for New Yorkers. Think the difference between Mamma Mia! and an obscure Sondheim revival: both valid in their own way, but pulling very different crowds, with one drawing in families and the other, self-proclaimed “theatre people.”

Want to look back beyond this season? Well, if we just narrow to Broadway musicals, admittedly my “area of expertise,” things get pretty dismal. There’s last season’s If/Then, which was generally regarded as “disappointing,” that throws in two cute cookie-cutter queer couples in the background to dispense advice to the straight protagonist. I do not remember these characters’ names. There’s Rent, in which bisexual Maureen is unable to stop cheating on her lovers (hmmm…) and lesbian Joanne is no-nonsense and uninteresting – the comic relief couple, they sing one song about their fractious relationship and fade. (Fun fact: one of the big love ballads, “Without You,” used to belong to them, but was then given to the play’s central – and straight – couple.) Oh, wait – there’s also a stereotypical lesbian-feminist in Legally Blonde, who says things like “phallocentric war machine.” (And she goes to Harvard – even worse.)  Perhaps our only saving grace is the musical adaptation of The Color Purple, which centers on a queer woman of color, but even it is so often sanitized, with the “queer” part being pushed behind the moniker of “intense friendship.”

Just in case you think the problem is some kind of overwhelming heterosexuality on the Great White Way, here’s a short preview of some musicals which feature queer men:

  • Avenue Q

  • Bare (off-Broadway)

  • The Boy from Oz

  • Cabaret

  • A Chorus Line

  • Falsettos (off-Broadway)

  • If/Then

  • Kinky Boots (Note: To anyone who only knows the piece vaguely, know that the musical goes out of its way to establish that the central character is a gay drag queen, not a trans woman. Drag queens are weirdly ubiquitous on Broadway and the implications aren’t amazing – but that’s another issue.)

  • La Cage Aux Folles (Same.)

  • Kiss of the Spider Woman

  • Legally Blonde

  • Rent

  • Spring Awakening

  • Victor/Victoria

(Plus Company, depending on who you ask. That’s rather contentious though.)

Some observations: Out of all the musicals I cited before featuring queer women, all of them besides The Color Purple also feature queer men. Alright. Many of them (A Chorus Line, Avenue Q, The Boy from Oz, Cabaret, Kinky Boots, Kiss of the Spider Woman, Victor/Victoria…) feature single gay men. That is, gay men are allowed to operate onstage outside of relationships – they’re interesting enough on their own. And much like before, the vast majority of these characters are white and cis. Shocking, I know.

Making lists like these may feel excessive, but I think they’re important. Not all of these portrayals of gay men are amazing, but at least they’re there, and at least there are enough of them that audiences see a whole spectrum of ways to be a queer man. What I would have given for a ballad between two women like the ones in Bare or the “Word of Your Body” reprise between two boys in Spring Awakening. Instead, I had a playlist with one song: “Take Me Or Leave Me.” A person can only sing “Women, what is it about them? Can’t live with them or without them!” so many times. And I can’t belt that high anyway.

These lists are important, too, because they represent a much larger problem: deceptive visibility, or visibility that really isn’t visibility at all. The LGBT acronym is useful and important – it indicates a sense of community, it’s unifying – but it also allows media to hide behind the moniker of “LGBT representation” when what we’re really seeing is white young gay cis male representation. One needs only to turn on the TV set to any new sitcom, read another Huffington Post article describing marriage equality as the be-all-end-all, or check out the latest spread on Neil Patrick Harris’s adorable family to get the gist. Similarly, Broadway and the theatre community at large pride themselves on their support of LGBT individuals, yet only a handful of those folks actually make it before an audience. What looks like representation for everyone is in reality representation for very few. But because that very few is represented, we wash our hands of the issue and say “case closed.”

There’s a lyric in one of Fun Home’s most memorable numbers, “Ring of Keys,” that says, “Someone just came through the door, like no one I ever saw before.” Replace “through the door” with “onto the stage” and you have a rough approximation of what seeing photos from Fun Home itself feels like for me. The woman at Fun Home’s center is like no one I’ve ever seen on Broadway: an independent queer woman not singing backup to straight characters or goofily misandristic or half of a cutesy couple, but grappling with complicated familial issues and her own maturity. I have no doubt that the musical will be phenomenal. Its source material is nothing short of remarkable, and the music is breathtaking – I highly recommend “Changing My Major” to anyone and everyone. (Finally! A song for queer women with notes I can actually hit!) The reviews of the off-Broadway production as well as the buzz surrounding its opening have all the makings of a hit. I hope it will run for a long, long time.

Still: Fun Home cannot and will not “solve Broadway’s lesbian problem,” and we should not imply that it can. It’s only one story. It tells about one experience, one way to be queer. The characters in Fun Home are also white and cis – plus, Alison Bechdel is a lesbian, so bi women are out for this round. Certainly Fun Home should not have to include every variation on what it means to be a queer woman in order to be considered crucial. But it should not be the only story that gets a lucky spot in Times Square, it should not be the only way seen to be a queer woman on Broadway. We should not congratulate ourselves for, for once, getting it right, for once, and then walk away, mission accomplished.

In her iconic TED Talk, Chimanda Ngozi Adichie warns of “the danger of the single story.” Having one well-developed piece of musical theatre, one single story, is simply not enough. Until the whole spectrum of individuals in the LGBT community can see themselves onstage, can be visible, “Broadway’s [anyone-but-cis-young-gay-white-men] problem” is a long way from solved.