Uneven Distribution.
I’M THE HEAD OF INNOVATION FOR MEDIACOM AUSTRALIA.
IF YOU HAVE AN OPINION ON ANYTHING I’VE WRITTEN, PLEASE COMMENT.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SUBSCRIBE VIA RSS PLEASE CLICK THE ICON BELOW.
You can also subscribe here to receive new posts via email.
Social media has a branding problem.
January 8th, 2009
A hundred thousand years ago cavemen had a very good reason to be neophobic. They knew that the familiar things in their environment did not kill them (and those that could kill them, they knew to avoid).
Anything new was, until proven otherwise, a threat.
Like many human instincts, this neophobia is still lingering in a world where it is an obstacle rather than a benefit. Moving advertising and marketing into the social web is, to a vast majority of clients and agencies who are presented with it, something new. Especially in the way it is presented to them. And so their instincts tell them it is something that could harm them. And rightly so, the web is full of bloggers heralding social marketing agencies as nothing short of the second coming, the twitterati are aghast that everyone else doesn’t ‘get it’, and in the past 12 months trade press has even occasionally giving some ink to ’social media experts’ telling brands that if they’re not in there already, they may as well not exist.
The irony is that a throng of communications experts have failed at getting the people that matter to listen to them about the social web. And as the blog posts and twitter buzz increases in volume, it seems to be widening the gap and failing harder. All this at a time when marketing budgets are shrinking and social media is missing out, even though there is a valid role for it in the current climate. It’s inexpensive, accountable, and excellent at building a brand’s long term value.
The problem is that social media has a branding problem.
We are by nature social animals. In this sense the majority of advertising up until now has been unnatural, it has been one-way, anti-social. The social space should be even easier than every other area we work in, because it is how humans naturally want to communicate.
Every brand manager, marketing manager, and agency type are now comfortable with the online world. It’s not the big scary beast it once was, and it’s value (in one-way marketing) is proven. Taking this one-way comfort into the social space should be an organic evolution, social media is not the new scary animal in the jungle, it’s just an evolution of something that’s already existing. It’s an evolution of what we already do, and have always done: we communicate with consumers.
Social media needs to just evolve into everything we do. Any creative idea or strategic approach must include a social element. This is how we move forward, not by scaring brand managers and using the latest bloggerati buzzwords. What we will be doing will not be groundbreaking, because it doesn’t need to be, it’s just evolution. Digital didn’t become part of mainstream agencies by standing out on it’s own shouting about how cool it was, it simply became ubiquitous in every piece of work we did. In the same way, social media will not become relevant in advertising by going solo, it must blur into every single idea we have.
Edit: Tellingly, both Gavin Heaton and Julian Cole have made interesting new years resolution posts today. Gavin has promised not to use the word ‘brand’ all January, while Julian Cole is abstaining from using the term ’social media’. Stephen Collins has also posted a reply to this one, arguing (correctly in my opinion) that it’s also problem of language.
Comments
Good post mate.
I will say though, even though “natural” progression seems like it should just take place, as conversation is something familiar to all of us, and Social Media permits brand to engage in it, one has to remember, that years of the “one way” dialogue, have not just been a restraint of the channels.
Companies are big beasts, and they are individual beast. When a company or brand talks, it speaks in the tone of _the brand_ not in the tone of an individual who represents the brand.
“Old” media channels, are perfectly tailored to broadcast the tone of “the brand”, and suddenly, every social media expert under the sun is asking those same brands to go online, and converse as though they were an individual. But it doesn’t work like that, because that big-brand tone is not that of an individual, and if not worked properly when taken into social media, will end up talking as though in a schizophrenic tone, or no tone at all.
This is BS. Honestly.
Tell me: how would, say, Ford make use of social media (e.g. Twitter) to sell more cars?
But even before we get there, tell me this first: how does a marketer track their bucks in social media?
hey Anon….
Firstly…. Ford can very easily use social media to stop people buying other brands of cars… If people post bad things about their cars and they respond it will generate good feedback (google comcast and twitter for example)
and if you are only thinking about tracking $$$ you are actually missing the point of a lot of social media. Good will is very hard to put a $ value on that is why it is priceless.
It’s a pity Anon didn’t ID themselves. It’s always the ill-tempered naysayers who like to be ACs.
To take Anon’s question head-on, Ford, interestingly enough, run a significant social media campaign front with a dedicated staff, the head of which is Scott Monty - http://www.scottmonty.com/
Social media metrics in terms of dollar benefits are actually pretty straightforward to track. There’s lead time on the savings, but that’s where the dollars are - savings.
“social media is not the new scary animal in the jungle, it’s just an evolution of something that’s already existing”
some people have been saying this for years …
also
“social media will not become relevant in advertising by going solo, it must blur into every single idea we have.”
why people decided to be “social media experts” in the first place always seemed ridiculous … it’s another comms channel, not an isolated skill.
maybe it’s cos a lot of our “SM experts” don’t actually work in advertising/comms … but seem to know everything about it.
Damian: Thanks for bringing up the brand vs. individual point. It’s one of the big challenges not just for social media, but for marketing in general. Great brands can make the transition easier, because they have (unknowingly) been adding this personal tone for years. Coke, Apple or Mini can use the same tone in their print ads as they might on twitter or Facebook because they have been consistently communicating in a human way through all their communications for quite a while.
Anon: I think Wolfcat answered your questions well, but I would like to add that in terms of ROI, it is much easier to track spend and value online than every other channel. Tools like BuzzMetrics and BuzzNumbers can put real dollar values against organic conversation. Also I consciously specified that social media is excellent at building long term value for a brand, something that we can also measure effectively (although like all qualitative brand metrics, ROI is much harder to determine).
My point of view is slightly different, but also in complete agreement. Just to be difficult!
First up I agree it is a branding issue but also a language issue.
I work in the HR & recruitment area where these topics are very hot at the moment. I constantly face a brand/perception issue that these tools are just for fun & the young people. Where people do not want to talk because they see no value. Bring the discussion around to be on business terms creates a very different discussion. I could go on but feel my comments would end up as a rant.
Social media is overrated. In 5 years, we’ll be looking back at it in exactly the same way we grimace at the thought of a 1990’s hairdo!
Firstly, where the hell did these so-called social media experts come from? What are their qualifications? Where are the research papers to demonstrate the success (or even failure) of SM marketing? All I’m seeing are a lot of noisy lightweights, some too young to know anything about business, making all sorts of outrageous pronouncements about this and that and that if we don’t get on the Twitterati or some other SM bandwagon, then you’ll be done in like an old 18th century French aristocrat!
As for Mr Monty - c’mon! That dude looks a bit like Pee-wee Herman. Anytime now he’ll jump out from behind the bushes to scare the living daylights out of mainstream marketers while simultaneously disrobing an overcoat and screaming “SURPRISE!” All the SM promises turn out to be exactly just that.
Look, seriously, I’m an avid user of Twitter, blogs (I have 2), digg, FB, etc, etc. myself. I just don’t buy into all this high-falutin gospel that “if you ain’t in it, you’re dead” (or some derivative thereof).
@ BS (how apt is that acronym)
“some people have been saying this for years …”
Yeah? Tell me who and when?
Nice post, Nic. This topic is on people’s minds at present. Take a look at Beth Harte’s excellent post at:
http://www.theharteofmarketing.com/2009/01/is-social-media-the-same-as-marketing.html
For social media to work properly, a company has to be ready to do it. They need systems and resources in place. It’s not the same as running a campaign for a month or two.
But I think it is also important to remember that “social media” has evolved out of a lot of personal web publishing. And social networks started out in specific niches - eg Facebook being an application designed for university students - before it evolved as a platform. When many people think social media, they think “past” rather than “future” (often assisted by MSM and/or the agencies who feel most threatened).
Oh, and turn off anonymous commenting. If someone’s got something to say, let them put their name to it 
Sorry to be slow, but are we talking just about social media or social media marketing as the two are related but very different. My perspective is all about social media and the impact on the organisation both internal and external. I know many folks are purely talking external but it goes both ways.
If it is just social media then:
@Anon. Go check out Gartner case studies on Dow using social networking sites to re-engage alumni & long term leave employee. In 3 months they hired 25 FT & 40 contractors. Or what about the Watson Wyatt studies on the benefits of clear communication generating 15.7% increase in market value & an employee engagement of 4 times that of organisations without effective communication. I could go on but my dinner is ready.
/rant.
Hi Michael,
Yeah I’m really talking about Social Media Marketing. Essentially the use of SM in marketing and advetising, whatever form that takes (paid-for via the social graph, brands twittering etc.).
Interestingly though I think the studies you mention are still very relevant to the discussion. Advertising isn’t just about flogging junk to the public, building your brand within your organisation and creating advocates from people close to the company is extremely important.
@gavin heaton
“or the agencies who feel most threatened”
Agencies feel threatened by social media? Really? What makes you say that … or is it just a general assumption …
I work at an agency and my take is the agency and the group are pretty excited about the prospect of the definition of ‘media’ becoming broader.
@anon - yep totally aware of the acronym. What I meant more is SM (for want of a better term) is a media evolution (not revolution) and many have been saying that digital is more an evolution of media rather than a fundamental shift for the past 15 years (when many have been saying everyything is changing and what you knew is completely irrelevant). Not saying it’s right or wrong, just saying …
You wonder what will be the new digital bandwagon in 18 months. Everyone’s always looking for the next ‘big’ thing.
I reckon the scary thing about social media to a certain generation of #advertisers# is the fact that you’re expected to hold up your end of a conversation and you can’t just outsource the whole thing to a media buying agency and talk down to the unwashed consumer.
In other words - to a lot of them it looks like actual work! It serves their purpose to say that its overhyped.
As to Anon’s ROI question though - I would say that’s an evolving beast, the metrics for which must evolve from this starting point : “Don’t just count the people, get to the people that count.”
Of course people in PR and direct understand this stuff and have done for years - so really in a way its not that revolutionary at all.
@Ben Shepherd … twas a general assumption based on a heap of meetings and conversations. Good to hear you guys are keen. It is not always the case.
Great post Nic, agree with you 100%. Social Media is an evolution of human development.
Its nothing new, just mirroring what humans (and animals for that matter) have done for the past million years - communicate socially.
Its time for the older school marketers to understand this.
It still amazes me how many ‘interactive’, ‘new media’ or ‘next gen’ marketers dont regularly use facebook or twitter. Sure they have the standard linkedin profile, but most of the time its stale and outdated….and these are the people still bagging the biggest digital marketing contracts going! Go figure.
09 will hopefully be the death of all the web2.0 buzzwords used to win over any big clients who think to question a wayward firms strategy and will instead be the birth of the next generation of digital marketers.
@ Michael
I just want to explore a little more this notion of the “next generation of digital marketers.” Can you define some basic characteristics?
Cheers.
[...] was thinking about you all reading Frankenstein (I am re-reading it too) when I came across this: A hundred thousand years ago cavemen had a very good reason to be neophobic. They knew that the [...]
