Moving the Needle on the Social Media Discussion

Beth Harte’s and Dan Keeney’s respective blogs got me thinking yesterday about how we discuss social media as a tool. Dan commented on Beth’s recent presentation to the Ft. Worth PRSA by saying that while valuable it wasn’t necessarily new. As a caveat let me say that Dan has made it clear he meant no disrespect, and if I understand correctly Beth took none. But it did make me wonder if we are in a rut when it comes to discussing social media. I must say that I echo Dan’s sentiment when I read many a blog topic about social media. We still seem to be pandering to (and this time it is I who mean no disrespect) the lowest common denominator—those folks, whether employers or clients or friends, who are either unaware of social media or are aware but know nothing of the tools. I think that many of us are still in outreach mode trying to make converts of everyone.

I propose, though, that it is time to elevate the discussion beyond the usual platitudes, i.e. “Your customers are using social media—are you ready?” Social media is nothing new, either philosophically (as Beth points out) or practically. The tools exist. I say let’s start discussing their use in more specifics and let the late adopters find their way on their own, or learn from our example.

Having said that, what is it that will move the needle on the SM discussion? I don’t know for sure, but I have some ideas:

• We need to start discussing or speculating about social media usage in very particular applications. For instance, I’m a big fan of Stephanie Holland and her She-conomy blog about marketing to women. I’d love to hear specific ideas for targeting them via social media. Stephanie has made a case at a 30,000-foot level for the value of social media marketing to women. I get it—I’ve drunk the Kool-Aid. Now let’s talk specifics. Twitter? Facebook? FriendFeed? SMS? Does one work better than the others when targeting women? Under what circumstances? Do particular age groups respond better to one tool over another? We may not have the answers now, but none of us can even try to use SM as a marketing tool without some kind of specific strategy. We need to share case studies of what works and speculate on what might work when we don’t know, so that we can go out and try it for ourselves.
• The SM landscape is huge, and ever shifting. We’ve got blogs and microblogs, social media networking sites, social bookmarking sites, lifecasting, wikis, etc. We need to start talking about how they can or should work together as part of a marketing plan. There will always be linkages we can’t control, but when laying out a framework for guiding customer discussions or adding value to their experience of our brand, I need to understand where to send them and when. For instance, I personally blog and tweet, and I'm on Facebook and LinkedIn. A few weeks ago I saw some folks on Twitter discussing FriendFeed. Some of my friends are on BrightKite. All of these tools have value from a marketing perspective. Now how do we make them work together?
• Part of the challenge of social media for marketers and executives is the conversational aspect. Many old-schoolers may be comfortable with face-to-face conversation but uncomfortable in a SM atmosphere. I say let’s help them by offering up examples of SM conversation. If you find yourself talking to a customer on Twitter, what do you say? When should you say it? How often should you say it? If you’re on Facebook, Ms. CFO, and a potential client contacts you about your company’s products or services, what do you say or do? Let’s take some of the mystery out of it by providing concrete examples for all of us to follow. I imaging the first users of the telephone were intimidated by the tool until they saw someone else use it and then tried it successfully. Let’s provide that example for social media.
  

I have other ideas, but this isn’t just about me. We all need to weigh in on this topic. For me, it kinda boils down to discussing SM “recipes.” If you are in Situation A, and you’re trying to achieve Goal B by addressing Audience C, why not try to use Social Media Tool D and reinforce the message with Social Media Tool E while running Traditional Media F?

As always, I welcome your thoughts.

Recipe Books and Social Media

Christopher Penn makes an excellent point about the brand building capabilities of those old recipe books your grandmother used to have. You know the ones, published by Kraft or Good Housekeeping. I encourage you to read his full post, but in a nutshell he makes the point that these cookbooks were the ultimate in the soft sell because every recipe included one of the company's products. They also had a timeless quality that added value to consumers for years and years.

Christopher compares this to the shameless self promotion that marketers employ on social media networks, and why it is such a dismal failure. I agree. Because social marketing is about conversation, we as marketing communicators have an opportunity to talk to consumers, hear their wants and needs, and then address them. We can turn blogs into the recipe books of the future by sponsoring a place in cyberspace where consumers can find information that transcends the products we are selling and provides them with value. We can also use microblogging to provide that same information in a more immediate and personal way. In short, we can give them the experience that is what brand building is all about.

I would encourage all of you to visit your local flea market and check out some of those old company-sponsored cookbooks. Maybe keep one out on your desk to remind you that adding value is what it's all about.

Hiding Your Twitter Habit from the Boss?

Hot on the heels of Oprah's triumphant entry into the Twitterverse (my tongue is firmly planted in my cheek as I say that), the New York Times published a piece on Spreadtweet, a Twitter client that looks just like an Excel spreadsheet. Why? Because you can use it at work and the boss will never suspect you're Twittering!

Given my post yesterday about why those in the trenches seem relatively absent in the blogosphere, I'm torn between being amazed at the cleverness of the concept and annoyed at the need for it. It's really unfortunate that there are companies that still prohibit the use of social media tools among employees. They provide valuable means for staying connected with colleagues and trends in one's industry. While I applaud the developers of Spreadtweet for finding a need and filling it, I am more inclined to encourage those working for employers that limit social media access to instead be honest about your desire to connect with colleagues and ask your management for permission to use the tools.

Instead of going underground, why not draft a proposal for your superiors that demonstrates the value of interacting with colleagues via Twitter and blogs? Offer to report to your colleagues on a regular basis the things you learn as a result of this interaction. Tie measureable social media interaction to your annual performance goals. In short, become visible embassadors of media that we all know is not just a passing fancy and not just a way to stay in touch with friends and family. Prove to your employers the value of social media; not only will it benefit you in your career but it will ultimately benefit all of us as we try to connect with ever more professionals across a variety of industries.

What does it mean to be "social media smart"?

My recent posts highlight a discussion that continues among social
media aficionados: what does it mean to be smart about social media
from a marketing perspective? What does it mean for a company to "get"
social media?

To answer this question, I'd like to step back for a minute and
discuss how social media has changed the marketing environment.
Fundamentally, it has augmented the feedback loop coming from
customers and other stakeholders to companies. In the past, marketing
was all about broadcasting. Mass media. Blowing messages out as
loudly and as broadly as possible. Feedback came in dribs and drabs;
certainly customers would comment during the buying process, but
concerted feedback only came when a company was willing and able to
pay for market research, host focus groups, etc. In short, the
conversation was predominantly one way--from the company to the
consumer.

Enter social media. Now consumers have a medium whereby they can
provide feedback at their discretion. It can be targeted directly at
the company of their choice, or it can be a shout from the
mountaintops into cyberspace. At any rate, it is noise to which many
companies are not accustomed, and to which they are similarly ill
prepared to manage.

So the real question is not whether or not a company "gets" social
media. It is whether or not a company is willing to have an ongoing
conversation with their customers and other stakeholders. If they are
willing, then they will eventually get social media, because right now
it's the best tool they have to engage in that conversation. If they
don't, then they won't. And for the moment I won't presume to judge
whether or not avoidance or those conversations is in the best
interest of those companies, because I do think there are other
considerations to evaluate before making that judgement. More about
that in a future post.

5 ways to create content for social media and SEO - iMediaConnection.com

Yesterday I discussed why many marketers don't get social media. Here's an excellent blog post re: how to create content for social media that also ties in the concept of search engine optimization. Enjoy.

----------

The heart of a brand's social media plan should revolve around interesting content. Here's how to maximize content value by attracting users no matter where they travel online.

View>>

Why Social Media is So Hard for Marketers to Grasp

Beth Harte tweeted today about a comment made on Mac Collier's blog "The Viral Garden" that further demonstrated how some folks still don't get social media. I agree with her. However, here's why I think it is that social media is still so hard for some to grasp:

• Social media is about conversations. And conversations happen among people. Most marketing folks have a hard time getting over their institutional mentality. Can you smell the bureaucracy?
  

  "Okay, gang. Who is going to own the Twitter feed for Conglomerated Amalgamated? Should it be Global Marketing, North American Sales or Client Services?"

  "I think it should be Operations, since they have the most product knowledge."
  

  "Sounds good. What about headcount? Do we need to hire someone?"

  "I don't know. I heard heads were frozen until Q4."
  

  "They are, but we might be able to steal someone from Rob's group, and I can build a headcount into my budget when we sit down in September."

  "You know we're going to have to get Marketing involved somehow, because otherwise they'll be pissed if we don't adhere to their brand standards."
  

  "Okay, then how about Alicia on 2nd shift? She used to be in Marketing, and I know she sends a lot of text messages when she's outside having a smoke."

  "That could work. Okay. I'll talk to Rob about borrowing Alicia. Someone talk to Alicia to see if she's interested. I'll be meeting with Marketing next week, so I'll clear it with them. And we better talk to IT to make sure we can get Twitter across the firewall. Tom, do you want to do that?"
  

• Social media is about conversations. And conversations happen among people. That means no longer are companies shouting at the universe and calling it marketing. Instead, they are talking to individuals, and actually getting a response. They're ill prepared for dialogue coming at them; in their minds that only happens in a crisis, in which case they pony out their highly-paid well-polished spokesperson.


• Social media is about conversations. And conversations happen among people. That means companies have to be receptive to what other people have to say. Many companies don't want to hear from people unless they are going to buy something. Heaven forbid the customer ask for something they don't deliver and don't want to deliver. And what if the customer says something NEGATIVE? This frightens the hell out of most marketers, because they think the competition will use positive comments to improve their own products and negative comments to steal market share. It frightens the hell out of salespeople because they think any negative comment will make it harder for them to sell. It frightens the hell out of the C-level suite because they're generally control freaks, and they can't control what someone says on the other end of your social media feed.


• Social media is about conversations. And conversations happen among people. That means that the person actually typing on Twitter or Facebook may have to be trusted to use their brains--and not the company hymnal--when talking to someone. This frightens the hell out of attorneys who worry that Alicia may be exposing the company to liability by acknowledging a customer comment that the Widget 3000 doesn't actually spin straw into gold.

Why is social media so hard for marketers to grasp? Because social media is about conversations. And conversations happen among people.

Why You Should Avoid Tweeting Your Dead Content

If you’re reading this blog, it’s likely because you found it via Twitter. I say that because I just started my blog and haven’t done anything to promote it before now. I see Twitter as a very useful tool for promoting my blog. It gives me an opportunity to add value to my followers by announcing the availability of new information for them to consume, which they can do at their convenience. As a blogger, however, it is now incumbent upon me to provide fresh content on a relatively consistent basis. If I don’t, then all of you who may choose to follow my blog will stop doing so when you see that it has likely died on the vine. And I won’t have a useful source of information to share with my followers on Twitter.

This reality doesn’t stop some bloggers, though. I’ve noticed many who try to keep their relatively dead blogs alive by repeatedly posting links to old blog posts on Twitter. I think this is a mistake. Yes, as your Twitter following grows you will be able to direct to your blog those followers who have not yet read it. Over time, though, I believe you’ll alienate faithful followers of your Twitter feed who will realize that you don’t really have anything new to say. The end result—they’ll eventually stop following you.

I think what you have to ask yourself is this—what kind of person do you want following you on Twitter? Do you want to have a core group of people who are faithful to you over time because you provide them with value, or will you be content to cycle through followers as they come and go? This isn’t just a Twitter/blogging question—it’s a question at the heart of branding and loyalty marketing. Is there more value in maintaining current customers or getting new ones? I’d suggest that only by supporting the interests of your current followers will you find new ones, and that only by consistently adding value will you turn new followers into loyalists.