(1) "Negative publicity is better than none at all."

WRONG. A ruined reputation is hard to fix. Bad publicity destroys products and individuals.

EXCEPTION 1: If you want to be known as a "bad boy" or a "bitch", then negative publicity for a negative entity makes sense. However most individuals and products don't want this perception.

EXCEPTION 2: An unfair or unseemly attack can generate sympathy for you. In this case, negative publicity may be to your advantage when people who never heard of you, and loyal fans, come to your aid to support you and clarify things.

But even in this somewhat "lemons to lemonade" scenario, how many people will believe the negative publicity and dismiss, or not be exposed to, the supporters rallying to defend you?

[*As a footnote, Seth Godin has said that it's better to be unknown, then randomly stumbled upon by a big influencer, who will delight in his discovery and will toot his horn about it, thereby making you famous.]

(2) "Marketing departments invent brands for products".

RIGHT. For parity products, where there's not much real difference between them (e.g. soap), an artifical position imposed upon it by an ad agency may be effective.

WRONG. But in most cases, "branding by committee" is a false path. A product will sustain an invented branding only if its essence conforms with the image created.

The real, actual "branding" of a product occurs in the customer's mind as they use it to solve a problem or satisfy a need. Thus, your marketing should be based on product facts translated into user benefits, with strong emphasis on what users say, unprompted, about your product.

(3) "Social media is a great place to sell products."

WRONG. Nobody joins a social network (Facebook, Twitter, MySpace) to receive advertising hype or sales messages. Too much self-promotion will generate ill will from online community members. Too many promotional messages will be considered flooding or spamming. Many socnets have Flag As Spam buttons to easily report such nonsense.

Social media is a good place to provide customer service. Smart companies use Twitter, for example, to answer questions, handle complaints, explain new products,  clarify issues, and offer discounts to disgruntled customers.

(4) "It's okay to spam people if the cause is good."

WRONG. I recently reported a Twitter user to the FTC due to his arrogant declarations of "Is it spam if the message concerns an orphanage in Haiti?" and when I told him that it certainly was spam, he replied to me "I'm sending fund raising messages to people I've traded email addresses with."

Spam is UCE Unsolicited Commercial Email, which can also include Twitter tweets and blog comments. If you're asking people to send you money, for any reason, or engage in any commercial relationship, you must have prior business dealings with them. Your recipients must give you permission to send them commercial messages, sales pitches, or fund raising messages.

(5) "Twittering about blog conferences I'm organizing, paneling, or attending is not spam."

WRONG. You are acting as an agent of an entity that is ripping people off. There is already a backlash against these expensive conferences where unqualified keynoters and panel members just quote Technorati statistics and Pew studies.

Or lie about how you can make $10,000 per month with a blog.

This has spawned my coinage of neologism "stealth spamming": pretending to present an educational opportunity that is really a scam.

(6) "Number of Followers on a social network means how many people love or pay attention to me...or: how many people I'm leading."

WRONG. Many social network members Follow you just in hopes that you'll reciprocate and Follow them. Also, a fairly large percentage of your Followers are likely to be bots or spammers.

Plus: on Twitter, for example, nobody reads every tweet of every person they Follow. My guess is that only about 10% of your messages are read by any one person who Follows you.

You certainly aren't demonstrating "leadership skills" by the fact that you've (with whatever dubious or legitimate method) attracted numerous Followers.

(7) "Customer service is a new priority for American business."

WRONG. Customer service is the worst aspect of capitalist enterprises. While companys give lip service to "it's easier and cheaper to retain current customers than to acquire new ones", almost none of them really put this into practice.

Companies think it's "sexier" and more exciting to chase after and woo new customers, while they tend to take current customers for granted...or worse. This rotten attitude stems from the phallocentrist patriarchal Conquest Syndrome. A guy wants to do as many women as possible, and as soon as one is conquered, he moves on to the next lady.