While taking a break yesterday from shoveling mulch and trimming shrubs and such, I checked in on TWITRCON 09 — a one-day conference about Twitter held at the Hotel Nikko in San Francisco.

Evidently about 270 or so people gave up their Sunday to hear speakers like Guy Kawasaki, MC Hammer, Steve Rubel and others. You could follow the conference by following @TWTRCON or by searching for #twtrcon on Twitter. You can also see photos from TWTRCON 09 over here.

The interesting thing about the convention was that Twitter users were asked to pose questions to the speakers and panels. I tried repeatedly to ask questions relevant to my post from yesterday, but evidently there was no interest in criticizing Twitter at all. This was apparently a day for preaching to the converted.

The biggest piece of information I was able to glean from following the TWTRCON on and off yesterday was that Twitter has a total of 45 employees.

In January, Michael Arrington reported that Twitter has a valuation of $250 million. To date, they’ve raised $57 million in venture capital funding.

So why can’t they take a million of that and hire some more engineers and develop a customer service department? That way, maybe representatives of a global brand might get some sort of a help desk response from Twitter in less than a month.

Nearly a month ago, I blogged about the evident lack of customer service over at Twitter. I concluded by saying, “Looks like a week of kvetching has had some effect. I hope the effect holds.”

It hasn’t.

In the weeks since that original post, the Twitter account in question has been hacked several more times. Since April 28 I’ve sent more than 50 emails about the issue to Twitter “support.”

The account is fine for a few days, then it reverts to the type of page you see in the screen shot above. The latest compromise to the account occurred yesterday, evidently sometime late in the morning or early in the afternoon.

(As of about 9:00 this morning, following a dozen emails yesterday to Twitter support as well as their PR, law enforcement, and partnership email addresses, the account remained compromised. By 10:00, though, it appears to have been fixed. But I can’t help wondering how long it will be before the next hack kicks in.)

I commented about the issue over on iMediaConnection, in response to an article about Twitter marketing experiments. I contacted the folks at an A-list social media site about this and received a response noting that “we have the same obstacles when reaching Twitter support.  It’s disappointing to say the least.” Out of respect to their direct request, I’m not mentioning the site’s name, but they are one of the 800-pound gorillas of social media. They have Twitter followers in the (very) high six figures  — and Twitter evidently ignores them, too.

So here’s the issue, and I think it’s a huge one:

As a marketer, you want to engage your customers and potential customers in social media. Twitter is at the eye of the social media hurricane, so you set up a Twitter account. You note your Twitter address on all communications, from emails to press releases to media alerts to blog postings to Facebook and Flickr and more.

But when your audience comes to your Twitter page, do they see the tweets you sent out yesterday? Do they see the branding you created for the Twitter page? Do they see the news and information you want to disseminate?

No. They see a page that looks like the screenshot accompanying this blog post.

Meanwhile, what about those people inside the brand’s organization who, after much cajoling and convincing, are taking that first tentative step into social media the way it ought to be done? Well, they’re asking legitimate questions:

“What the hell is going on? Is THIS what social media is all about? Seriously? Is THIS what you’re trying to sell as a cutting-edge marketing tactic?”

And they’re coming to conclusions:

“Social media sucks. My brand is being undermined. I shouldn’t be wasting time or money on this crap. This is a ridiculous mess.”

The articles being written daily about Twitter are over the top, and have been for some time. The tubes of the Interwebs are clogged with advice on how to use Twitter to make money, build your brand, connect with customers, be genuine, share information, advertise deals, identify influencers, open new marketing channels, transform media, and so on, and so on, and so on …

It’s time for marketers to sober up where Twitter is concerned.

Can it be a powerful tool? Yes. But: Twitter needs to improve system security and they need to start thinking about customer service for people like me, for the giant A-listers, and for everyone in between.

Because one smartass hacker plus one non-responsive support department can turn a social media strategy into a social media migrane in no time.

Takeaway for marketers: Thinking about using Twitter as a main tactic in your social media strategy? Proceed with extreme caution.

MAY 31 UPDATE: The answer to the question in the fifth paragraph above? About a half hour. It’s hacked again as I type this.

DMNews reports on how local advertisers will be reducing spending by about $11 billion over the next four years … and how remaining dollars are shifting away from traditional media and toward digital initiatives.

It’s been a busy news week in the newspaper business.

The Rocky Mountain News — older than the state of Colorado itself — published its final edition yesterday.

Newsday is talking about charging for online content. The problem, of course, is that the New York Times tried this and failed. I can’t help wondering what Newsday thinks it can offer for a fee that infinite free Websites provide for a click.

Meanwhile, the American Society of Newspapers Editors is so bummed about what’s happening in their business they canceled their annual convention for the first time since World War II.

Want more? If you’re on Twitter, follow @themdiaisdying and you’ll know that the Boston Herald is looking to cut 20 more jobs, the Albany Times Union is cutting staff, the Frederick News-Post is suspending its Monday edition … and that’s just in the last 15 hours.

The reasons this is happening have become cliche: the rise of the Internet, the shift of classified ads to the Web, and the fleeing of advertising dollars in general. The current economy is speeding up the whole process.

What needs to happen — fast — is that a lot of smart people need to get in a room and completely re-imagine the news business.

They need to start with this assumption: “We’re selling news, not papers.”

Then they should assume newspapers don’t exist at all and ask themselves: How would you create a news organization from scratch in the 21st century?

One of those people ought to be Larry Kramer, whose Daily Beast article the other day about the second coming of newspapers shows he really gets it. “Forget the newspaper industry,” he says, “let’s launch the News Industry.” Bingo.

Meanwhile, Hearst seems to be doing some thinking in this area. In a time when the New York Times could send every subscriber a free Kindle at half the cost of printing the physical paper, Hearst is launching its own wireless e-reader. Hmmmmm.

… in which we continue yesterday’s post regarding the issue of hiring a full-time employee vs. a consultant or independent contractor. In case you missed it, go ahead and read the post. We’ll wait.

Ready? Good: Here’s what Rodger Roeser, owner and President of Eisen Marketing Group, had to say about the issue:

“This is a no-brainer in this economy. Hiring a firm (graphic, PR, advertising, marketing) is just soooooo much more cost-effective. You’re only paying for the work you need done. There’s typically a finite beginning and end. Agency doesn’t drink your coffee, never calls in sick. Much more expertise, WAY less overhead.”

Karen Tripi Associates, an executive recruiter since 1985, seems to agree with Rodger: Jamie Serino over at KTA forwarded a press release noting that the company has just launched “a new division that specializes in finding the highest quality marketing professionals for contract, freelance and short-term project positions. ”

“In this challenging time, companies are looking for alternative staffing solutions,” said Karen Tripi, President of KTA. Evidently.

Harriet Cohen of  Training Solutions, a boutique consulting firm, notes that “the benefit I bring to my clients is the ability to be up on the trends and experts, and to be able to offer current state of the art high level staff at lower prices. I also offer more objectivity, in addition, I can tell the truth more easily without fear of being fired or labeled. I am finding more companies are outsourcing those foundation or creative programs that are adjuncts to their business and it frees them to focus on their business.

“The flip side of the argument,” Harriet notes, “is if the assignment is sensitive or deals with really understanding the culture and there isn’t a lot of time to get up to speed then internal is the way to go. Overall if the work can be done quickly efficiently and reliably by an outsourced agency thereby freeing internal staff to work on what is most important for the success of the company then outsourcing is the way to go.”

Meanwhile, something of a middle ground is noted by Jamie Pennington of Flexible Executives, who presents “a possible third option: Instead of hiring full-timers or signing up for lengthy retainers, the market seems to be moving toward hiring help on an as-needed basis, i.e. flexible executives. Marketing is our biggest category, with clients calling on our executives (who average 18 years experience, are fully vetted by our company, and proven leaders in their fields) being brought in as consultants on a project basis as demand warrants.

“For instance,” Jamie continues, “a company is launching a new product and needs to conduct market research, or hire a seasoned PR executive to handle the campaign – enter a flexible executive who comes in with a defined scope of work, outlined deliverables, no minimums and no retainers. Virtually all projects are priced not to exceed the total amount, without worrying about hourly fees.”

Finally, Joni Daniels of Daniels & Associates offers this sage advice:

“Any change will involve some start up costs (money, training, orientation) so that has to be figured into the decision,” Joni observes. “Focus on your current needs: Do you need a proven track record? Do you have enough work to keep someone active and productive full time? Do you foresee growing needs or know exactly what you need and don’t need input as to additional services/products? What happens if the individual leaves? (Can you endure time loss while a replacement is found?)

“There is no ‘right’ answer but there is a ‘best’ decision depending on the answers to these questions.”

Thanks to everyone who responded to my HARO query — I appreciate you all taking the time to offer your comments and share your insights — and thanks again, HARO: You provide an excellent service.