Companies are always faced with the constant desire to expand to different audiences. A relatively big market that is increasingly catching everyone’s attention is racial diversity. According to the U.S Census Bureau, around 34% of the United States population is a minority and that number is expected to grow exponentially in the upcoming years.

Of all the ethnic groups, the Hispanic population is growing at the fastest rate and it has caught the attention of many industries. However, a lot of companies’ slogans and advertisements do not translate well and were not designed to reach a universal audience. So how are companies changing their brands to appeal to specific racial groups?

They turn to Multi-Cultural Agencies to do the job. Companies such as Dieste focus on creating nationwide Hispanic campaigns that are custom made for that specific audience. Dieste has already worked with companies like AT&T, Frito-Lay, and Gillette in designing their new campaigns, which focus more on family values and attempt to utilize celebrities that are known in the Hispanic culture.

The real challenge now lies in not only attracting different ethnic groups, but also attracting individuals within these groups who may not consider themselves bound to just ethnic standards. What companies must realize is that within these diverse communities lies a complex network of different subgroups that need individualized attention to be targeted successfully.  Factors such as age, socioeconomic status, and household differences all need to be accounted for when trying to attract as many customers as possible. As the culture of the United States continues to transform, companies must do the same if they wish to remain competitive in the market.

Last week the Egyptian government shut off the nation’s Internet access in an attempt to diffuse the protests, but protesters still found ways to tweet to the world what was happening in the streets.

Violent demonstrations erupted across Egypt, as citizens attempted to show their dissatisfaction with the country’s President, Hosni Mubarak, who has ruled the country for the past 30 years.

Egyptian protestors used the social networking site Twitter to organize and share their struggle with the rest of the world. In an effort to limit communication and bring the situation under control, the government shut down the country’s internet access on January 27^th.

Despite this intervention, the tweets continued with protestors using mobile devices and the internet connections of friends in neighboring countries. In response, the government used its emergency power under the Telecommunications Act to have the Vodafone Group, a major cellular provider in Egypt, send pro-Mubarak texts to its customers.

Google joined forces with Twitter to develop Speak to Tweet, a service that allows tweeting without the need for internet access. Users of the service can dial one of three international numbers and leave a voicemail, which will be sent out as a tweet.

In the past we relied upon centralized sources, such as television and radio, for our news. With control in the hands of a select few, government intervention was easy. The Internet fragments control of the news and places it in the hands of the people. Sites like Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook will continue to virally spread news even in the absence of traditional news sources. And, even when browsing restrictions are put in place, there are technologies that can be used to bypass them. There is an excellent article on the blog Mashable, which describes how Egyptians have been bypassing government restrictions.

Last week’s incident demonstrated why the internet is becoming a threat to non-democratic regimes around the world. It will be interesting to see what effect the Internet will have on the spread of democracy in the coming years.

In the past advertising was one way. Sellers used traditional mediums like television, radio, billboards, and newspapers to tell us about their products and services. When content was linear, they were able to market to a captive audience and communication was only one-way. The internet changed everything, allowing for two-way communication between marketers and consumers. The internet took away power from huge marketing agencies and gave it to the average user.

According to a 2009 report by Nielsen, 90% of people place some trust in the recommendations of their friends; only a small amount of consumers trust corporate advertisements. This means that advertisers must get consumers to talk to each other about their products.

Each person has a sphere of influence made up of the people they associate with. Social media sites make it easy for people to find and stay in communication with friends and acquaintances, amplifying the reach of a single consumer. Each of these friends has friends who also have friends, allowing any single user to deliver their message to a potential audience of hundreds, thousands, or possibly even millions.

Just as social media can spread positive messages, if ignored, it also has the ability to do great harm to a brand. People will discuss their grievances with a company, whether or not the company chooses to participate. By not participating, these negative messages can become viral, attracting others with similar grievances. As more and more people join the conversation and link to it, the search engines will notice and help to deliver even more traffic to it. To prevent this, firms must demonstrate to customers that they are listening and care by responding promptly to criticism.