-
Website
http://www.chrisbrogan.com/ -
Original page
http://www.chrisbrogan.com/marketing-is-not-social-media-social-media-is-not-marketing/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
The challenge I'm finding is convincing the marketers I work with that social media is different and it isn't about hard line, quantifiable facts. That is is about discussion, conversation and exploration more so than recognition, request and conversion.
I have said, "In order to wrap your brain around social media, you have to take everything you've learned about marketing and throw it out the window," about three dozen times this month. Approaching social media as a marketer will make you fail (as you've pointed out above).
While I'm making headway, I'd love to learn some tricks on how to break through the thick-headedness of some marketers to see that.
Sharing this article with them will help. Thanks Chris.
On the Burger King front, for example, with the increasing shift in the way that we consume media (to online away from mass channels), any marketing efforts that do not carry a social media component will end up reaching smaller and smaller audiences at ever increasing unit/customer acquistion cost. Clearly marketers chase an audience -- hence the shift to online channels. However, you rightly point out, that these are new tools. And new tools call for new rules.
Many marketers have little understanding of how social media works or what needs to change. This is the real value that social media "consultants" or community builders bring to the marketing business. There are some great learning opportunities on both sides ... just hope that the marketing folks are listening.
Saying Social Media is the tools is like saying carpentry is the tools - and carpentry is no more the hammer then social media is the video camera. Yes they are essential, important and deeply intertwined, but this fundamental disagreement changes the perspective of the article I think in a dramatic way.
During a Google presentation today from the former CMO of YouTube Suzie Reider, I was struck by one slide in particular, where she posited that video on YouTube "was both social, and media". My interpretation, which I hinted at in my blog post today was that this meant it was personal and intimate, while also being broadcast and mass market.
Once again, I am coming back to rest upon the question of INTENTION - if the intention of the person using the tools is to use the tools to separate people from their pocketbooks, its just, as you said, 'bad marketing'. If instead, people understand how and why things have changed - that it isnt an us vs. them world, but rather one in which we are all in it together. If marketers understand that they can find great personal fulfillment, professional effectiveness and true/authentic social media engagement by bringing the intention of being of service to people in their 'market', it can and it will be quite a different experience all around.
This again goes back to understanding what Doc Searls talks about regarding "the because effect" - as many people I spoke with here at the Search Insider Summit discussed today, its not about the transaction, its about the experience. When the experience is genuine, not fabricated - When the experience is about an exchange of value, entertainment or creation - When the experience is a result of people being of service, organizations may make money BECAUSE of it, but not necessarily from it directly.
Good spark my brother - lots more to discuss you media maven mad man...
One of the attractions of marketers to social media is the fact that, as individuals use social networks to find one another, marketers can use them to find the individuals we want to sell to. But being sold to is NOT why consumers come to social media venues in the first place. Good marketers get this and don't try to get all commercial in these venues...it's like trying to sell Amway products at a neighbor's cocktail party...totally uncool.
I hate Push Marketing tactics as much as the next guy. The brands that act appropriately in the social space will succeed. They'll engage the curious with respect and without self-interest. But if they show up and start shoving intrusions in our faces in our favorite online social haunts, I think it will bite them. Hard.
you can use a hammer and be picking at rocks and doing a very good job at it (social media by the masses) but you really need exhaustive training and a natural gift to produce a master piece from a piece of rock with the same proverbial hammer.
As a traditional marketer I am learning about social media and I am excited and freaked out at the same time. It's everything I wished marketing would be. It's authentic. It allows me to gain incredible insight into people. It forces me to dive into behavioral sciences to try to grasp and understand. Alas, it's the two-way conversation and community I have been longing for.
I hope we bridge the chasm between social media types and those who practice marketing because there is much to learn. Let the conversation begin.
I realize it's all about the people, getting to know them and their wants or needs. It's not an advertising medium - there's adwords for that.
I think social media done right, takes patience and persistence but it can be a valuable addition to one's marketing plan. I look forward to learning more.
Chris, do you like to cook?
As a "social media type" who also happens to be a (somewhat non-traditional) marketer, I think there is a distinction to be made among marketers.
Not all marketers see social media as another channel to be used to push a one-way message. There is a group of marketers (Seth Godin comes immediately to mind)who have seen the need to approach marketing as a conversation for years.
Long term, it may get ineffective, the same way email marketing (a.k.a. spamming) is today - but by then, some fortunes will have been made, the slash-and-burners will have moved on to the next Big Thing... and purists will sit back, scratch their heads, and wonder what they missed
(I know I did with regard to email relationship building... those hard-earned trusting interactions are losing value fast because email delivery rates have plummeted across the board! :-(
All success
Dr.Mani
Communities that form on the web form the niche marketing opportunities, the focus groups, or just Focus that I think most companies would like to find to publicize, test and "broadcast" their goods and services. The trouble traditional marketing gets into is finding a receptive community, and co-opting it rather than exploiting it. That can be a finely tuned dance that isn't easy to do.
All this goes back to the amazing prescience of Cluetrain and "markets are conversations."
So, the issue as I see it is two-fold 1) how can we graphically translate, "the conversation" to "The bottom line" and 2) how can the corporate institutions build a process to listen and react to the social networks in which they participate.
The result of that combination will be better products that have a built in market, less selling, and increasing attraction to the brand.
The problem is it requires a leap of faith for many and the total number of customers are too low at this point to be taken as anything more than a great experiment.
Some programs, like the Dell outlet on Twitter you can have a good metric trail; the numbers however, are small comparatively to other marketing tactics. Todd Defren has a similar post on Twitter as a potential selling model. http://tinyurl.com/2dudzy
Also greater detail on social graph from Jeremiah Owyang here http://tinyurl.com/25kgus
I strongly agree that social media does not belong within marketing. Instead, I believe it belongs in Internal Communications, where the specialists are trained to communicate--internally and externally. Putting it here will cause great consternation within the Marketing Department and PR. But at the end of the day, communications capabilities belong in the hands of communicaters, not message managers.
Great post. I do agree that social media isn't the tools; the tools are blogs, vlogs, podcasts, etc.
I strongly agree that social media does not belong within marketing. Instead, I believe it belongs in Internal Communications, where the specialists are trained to communicate--internally and externally. Putting it here will cause great consternation within the Marketing Department and PR. But at the end of the day, communications capabilities belong in the hands of communicaters, not message managers.
Note: I run a marketing and a communications firm. Social Media consulting sits on the communications side.
The rise of mass media and the intermediation model, where sellers no longer spoke directly with buyers, instead speaking through the MEDIA, changed the dynamic and created the "consumer." Which has to be just about the worst word in our marketing arsenal. No longer people, companies thought of us simply as consumers of their products.
What social media does is bring marketing back to its roots. Once again we can engage directly with our customers in meaningful ways. The first thing I tell people is to strike the word consumer from their vocabulary. That more than anything else seems to get the mind shift working.
So, the issue as I see it is two-fold 1) how can we graphically translate, “the conversation” to “The bottom line”
Exactly, Albert. Social media is still hard to sell to so many companies because they can't see how it directly impacts the balance sheet. We can talk about 'joining the conversation' and 'more efficient marketing due to better understanding your customers' all we want, but companies aren't listening.
Until they can understand how it directly impacts the bottom line, many companies will wait and see. And lose out to companies that are dipping their toes in the waters now.
Check out my post, "Should I Use Social Networking as a Marketing Tool?" http://www.eggmarketingblog.com/2007/10/24/shou...
I learned the hard way that it might not do what I expected it to do.
And I really dug what you said about being open to being marketed/advertised to, while at the same time being open to companies using social media as a way to find out about YOU. It's just like physical networking. You don't talk about yourself, you ask questions.
You don't seem to understand marketers yet you suggest that marketers use social media to try to understand you better.
Why? Is that their goal, to be more understanding?
Why don't you tell an alligator, or a tiger that they should try to understand a zebra better when all that holds their interest is satisfying a sense of hunger in their belly?
If you continue suggesting that they consider you differently, then you are asking them to forsake rules that have kept their bellies full and their and, instead, to adopt your rules.
Knowing this, if you want them to change, you have to first change in such a way that they can't ignore and, then, once you have their attention, you have to beat them at their own game...
...and only then can you begin to speak to them of another way.
Only when they are subdued will they become receptive... and that is, IF they're not too far gone.
You have a point in there somewhere, Chris, but you're flailing about a little bit and could use a little more help refining it. Right now, you're speaking to predators in the language of prey.
Sam
They Myth and Fallacy of Social Media
But here's the funny thing about the analogy overall, and maybe it does apply, maybe it doesn't.
Predators are quite often endangered animals at this point. Certain species of sharks are under threat of being overfished; tigers in some parts are being developed out of their territories. There are countless examples of us dumb prey accidentally screwing up the experience for the hunters.
Upon re-reading my post, what's funny is that it appears you didn't really read it. I never say that social media is better than marketing. I never say that you need to do what we're doing. My point, laid out repeatedly without a whole lot of flailing, is that they are different methods.
I mentioned that social media types could learn from marketers. I mentioned that marketers couldn't apply their traditional thinking to using the tools of social media. From the title down, that's been the thrust of the argument.
So, go forth and don't change and enjoy your full belly. There are plenty of folks still willingly accepting the traditional tactics. And yet, marketers are flooding into the social media space to try and learn the tools, so that must mean something. Ice age?
@Gavin- I hope both groups of folks are listening, because there are lots of "hippies" in social media, thinking they're changing the world just by wearing the "clothes." But yes, I think there is some crossover learning to be had.
@Chris Heuer- Glad to have you stop by, and you raise a good point. There's a movement behind the tools, and skills that make use of those tools. It's definitely more than just tools. I like your quote from the YouTube thing.
@EricWeaver- that's an interesting point, and you're right. Social networks make it very easy to find the like-minded pockets that marketers are targeting. You're equally right that using the social network channel to then attack those pockets would be looked upon badly. Maybe, you'd take the info back to the traditional marketing channels, use the knowledge to do a better attack vector, and then it would still be traditional marketing, informed by a little attention.
@Caleb- metrics are a huge problem in social media. It's like asking how influential any single conversation is in changing one's thinking. Real hard to quantify.
@Melody - I cook occasionally, but not as often with the hours I keep. Why do you ask?
@Susan- Marketers are wonderful people with a lot to offer the universe. They continue to influence my buying decisions, and help companies get their products and services SEEN and absorbed. Why knock that? I just don't like BAD marketers.
@DrMani- remember that time you sent out an email blast and I twittered something? You mentioned that Twitter seemed to have the better impact. Probably so, and yet, if I twittered out marketing messages all the time, the value would go right downhill. So, it's still something to be considered, because the TACTIC in marketing to blast repeatedly might fail in both mediums.
@Whitney and Mack- I couldn't agree more with the notion that traditional marketing have lots to learn from integrating with communities. Whether it applies to their money-making part of their work, or if it just helps them better understand their prey (as Sam above puts it), they should still be there.
@Morriss- well said. : )
@Albert- #2 is easier to solve. Tools like Radian6 make that easier than it was before. Bottom line impact is a little tricker. It doesn't stack up the way other campaigns can be measured, at least theoretically measured. I'd offer that this is one of those "No one ever got fired for buying IBM" things.
@Susan - thanks for the link. I think everyone should swing by and check it out.
You've all raised so many interesting points. I would love to hear more from marketers and even other social media practitioners. Feel free to point folks to this post (but ESPECIALLY the conversation in the comments) so we can get other perspectives.
Dan: Saying Social Media is a channel is like saying the web is a channel. Sorry, that's not the case. Social Media is blogs and podcasts, social networks and social sharing sites.
Each of these different sub-media, or media, have their own rules, language and cultures. Just as you can't just wipe out a wikipedia entry and replace it with blather, you don't want, as a marketer, to approach a Social Media domain without taking time to understand it.
Social media consultant folks are like the translators who also tell you culture - the people who say "Don't name your car 'NoVa' in South America because that means 'won't go' in Spanish.
And yet, I see marketers on a constant basis doing just that.
I agree that marketing is not social media and social media is a very small part of marketing.
Here's a post that captures my point of view on how engagement is only one part of marketing and how social media is only one tool to build engagement -- Is Customer Service the New Marketing? Of Course Not!.
[social media enables] "access to potential audiences of shared interest."
While social media isn't nearly as measurable, it certainly gives a much richer context and insight into how people live their lives. This is what many marketers fail to understand.
Social media isn't about generating leads, discovering prospects, or pushing any old-school marketing tactics on anyone. It's about listening and understanding. Sharing and connecting. Giving and then giving some more.
Any marketer who treats this as just another "channel" is in for a rough time. Social media shouldn't be used to spread your message. It should be used to understand the messages that other people are spreading. And with this understanding will come better marketing.
So while the two aren't entirely dichotomous, some marketers should continue to keep them at a distance. At least until they realize what this space is all about.
I will add that the rules of the road are changing - for now everyone views the initial impact of social media as it relates to marketing [kinda like how websites were just marketing brochures till someone woke up to selling stuff thru em.;) ]
The true impact of all this social media stuff is much deeper than marketing - it is business changing. But --heh - you already know that [jumping off soapbox!]
Marketers are traditionally brand centric.
Social media is all about the social experience, the social interaction.
In the mind of a social media user, it's all about the connectivity.
Marketers can successfully engage in social media if they are willing to adapt their practices into an opt-in social engineering type role. Movements have been created around brands and BY MARKETERS.
Isn't this marketing in social media?
To me social media, the tools, and the way of communicating finally make it easier, and likely for a generation of business people to actually do marketing as the concept is defined. Though the reality is that the tools were never needed, just the willingness to implement the strategy.
In the web2.0 world, where your first attempt at any experience is to Google for information and then stumbleupon brands, as a brand marketer you should be creating the keywords out of the social media conversations.
great post on some of the differences and I think a lot of marketers diving into the social media world should read it.