positive disruption by: Tom Martin | New Orleans based Social Media | B2B Digital Prospecting | Digital Strategy Agency

Social Media Isn't All About Conversation

Tweet

A few weeks back, I posted a slightly controversial post on Ad Age, talking about why I believe ad agencies should own social media. I knew the post would cause a rucus and it did...mostly around two areas. First, the idea of "ownership" drove a number of comments and response posts -- and a great amount of really good conversation. Second, was a number of folks took the post to task and in response posts on their own blogs proceeded to talk about how my post indicated a certain lack of social media knowledge on my part. Now, that in and of itself is fine. We all have opinions but what got me a bit fired up was the lack of any factual support for their position. It was, as is so often the fact, a post in which they said something (opinion) and thus because they were a self-appointed social media expert, it must be true. So over the next few posts, allow me to one-by-one show with supporting evidence why I think these social media experts may not be such experts.

By and far the number one dispute was around this passage:

Think about it. So much of what you see in social media is the creation of stories, content, photos, videos, information and entertainment. Now I'm not tossing aside the customer-engagement aspect of social media -- that is and will always be the heart and power of the channel. 

The common response post indicated that my "content driven" thoughts showed that I, like ad agencies, didn't get this brave new world called social media. It showed I didn't get that social media is all about conversations.

Newsflash: Social Media isn't all about conversations...especially when your context for the discssion is brand to consumer social media. But don't take my word for it... here are recent comments from well regarded social media consultants.

Scott Stratten (@unmarketing) in his BlogWorld 2010 Keynote: 

Jason Falls (@JasonFalls) talks about the social media value of sharing great content on his blog and he also shared this tidbit at his CoastalSocial presentation:

and lastly, probably one of the most well respected names in social media, Chris Brogan (@ChrisBrogan) talks about Why Sharing [content] Matters on his blog.

I could go on, but I'll stop. The simple fact is that long-term success in the social space is about more than just being a great conversationalist. Especially when you're looking at this from a brand perspective. According to numerous research studies, consumers choose to follow, fan and like brands in the social space primarily to get insider deals and to be exposed to cool content. If engagement or conversation is even mentioned, it's very far down the list.

  

All of this to say, I get that it's very social media politically correct to focus on the conversation side of social media. To hold that up high, place it on a mantel and bow to it as the end all, game changing opportunity of social media. But if you fall prey to that kind of thinking, if you insist on bending to that puritan view of social media, I'm afraid you'll miss a huge marketing opportunity called Content Marketing.

But enough about what I think... what do you think?

 

And hey, if you enjoyed this post, please consider subscribing so you can have posts from this blog sent directly to your eMail in box. And don't worry, I'll never share your email with anyone and I don't send anything but blog posts... because that's not what your here for right?

 

Please Put Down Your Pom Poms and Just Talk To Me

I was never a cheerleader in high school. Heck, as best I can recall, I never even dated a cheerleader in high school. But I did go to my fair share of pep rallies, football games, and such. And at each and every one, there were the cheerleaders, front and center, waving their pom poms and yelling at the top of their lungs.

They were doing their job. And their job was to get my (and everyone else in the audience's) attention and cause us to perform an action. In most cases, that was to cheer loud and long to create energy (pep rally) or home field advantage (football game). There job was to make me pay attention versus say, chatting with my buddies or otherwise occupying myself.

Hmmmm, sounds a good bit like advertising.

And when you're talking to a bunch of folks that aren't paying attention to you -- that makes darn good sense. If I'm not paying attention to you, then yes I kind of expect that you're going to jump up and down, wear visually interesting costumes, yell my direction, hold up big signs and shake your pom poms in my face until I stop what I'm doing and pay attention to what you have to say or want me to do.

But this is social media.

A place where for you to even hope I can hear you I have to follow, fan or like you in the first place. In other words, you already have my attention.

So given that I've granted you my attention, divided yes, but attention none the less, why do you think it necessary to keep shaking your pom poms in my face? Wouldn't you be better off just whispering in my ear, up close and personal? Make me feel like I'm the only one in the world you're talking to right that minute?

Would that be slightly more appropriate and more importantly, effective?

Tweet

And hey, if you enjoyed this post, please consider subscribing so you can have posts from this blog sent directly to your eMail in box. And don't worry, I'll never share your email with anyone and I don't send anything but blog posts... because that's not what your here for right?

 

Thirsty Thursday of Knowledge - Tivo Comes to YouTube

Tweet Remember a few years ago when advertisers were all fretting about Tivo? How it was killing the 30-second spot? How it was going to be the death of television advertising?

It was kind of humorous when you think about it. All Tivo did was give the consumer a chance to physically do what they have been mentally doing for years - ignore bad ads. Because, even in a Tivo world, consumers will watch good or relevant ads.

So it wasn't all that big of a surprise to see advertisers of all stripes embrace online video marketing. It was often cheaper to produce, had that whole cool viral thing going for it and because it was content that consumers invited into their world - it was surely going to be effective right?

Well yes, if consumers actually watch it. But that is a BIG "if" according to a recent study from Visible Measures. In a very interesting piece in Ad Age this week, Matt Cutler shares a real eye opening study.

According to the research they did, 20% of consumers abandon your video in the first 10 seconds. It keeps going up from there with 50% abandoning by the 90 second mark.

Seems someone invented a Tivo for online video too. It's call a mouse or nowdays, a trackpad.

I loved this post because it drives home the single most important point that I think everyone in the communication business has to revisit. Technology doesn't kill advertising. Bad advertising kills advertising... and email, and social media marketing and online video, etc.

I truly believe that if you're providing value in the form of information, cool factor, entertainment, humor, or whatever -- consumers will actually pay attention to what you have to say and then act on it. Yes, in my over simplified view of how to create successful marketing programs, I do truly think it all comes down to this one simple fact.

So while you can create viral video for a fraction of the cost of traditional 30 second spots, the question becomes, is anyone any more likely to watch it?

What do you think?

Tweet

Did you enjoy this post? If so, please consider subscribing so you can have posts from this blog sent directly to your eMail in box. And don't worry, I'll never share your email with anyone and I don't send anything but blog posts... because that's not what your here for right?

Should you support douching?

Tweet

Does the ends justify the means?

That was the question that Jay Baer, Julien Smith and I were chatting about last week over a very, very fine meal at Galatoire's Restaurant here in New Orleans. Thanks to Carrie Devries for making that happen BTW.

Anyhow, the basic point of discussion was if it is ok to include, leverage or borrow the social capital of high profile social media gurus, when your personal opinion of them isn't all that great or as Jay put it more bluntly, "they're a douchebag." From his comment you can probably gather Jay wasn't a fan of "ends justify the means" thinking. For his part, Julien seemed to fall more on the "don't support douchbags" thinking but honestly, I don't recall him ever taking a firm stand one way or the other.

Initially I countered that the ends justify the means. As a markter, our role is to achieve the goal for our client and if that goal includes social media awareness/eyeballs, etc., then reaching out and inviting high profile social media elite to play along (even if our personal opinion of them may teeter towards douche) then that's just what you do. A PR pro doesn't have to like every reporter they pitch a story to, but they need that reporter's influence or readership to obtain a specific marketing goal for their client. So wouldn't this be basically the same principle but in a different medium?

Note though, I said "initially" because the conversation didn't stop there. And in fact, I couldn't stop thinking about the question even long after we had left Galatoire's to enjoy the many fabulous bars in New Orleans or a late night "mother of all burgers" at Port-of-Call. The more I thought about it the more interesting the question becomes because unlike paid media, social media is a reputation based medium. 

That is to say, in social media, the reason why you do things is as important, if not more so, than what you really do. And that I believe was the crux of Jay's point. By "supporting douchery" you yourself become a douche. [Jay if I am mistaken, let me know so I can update this post]

Ok.. so let's go with that train of thought, but apply it to various efforts to see if it holds true.

First, let's say you're just another social media consultant, agency, etc., that is hoping to raise awareness of your personal brand. Maybe you're trying to get a new job, start a company, launch social media at your agency, publish a book, or some other business or life goal where "fame" or being "known" could help you financially.  In this case, I'd have to say I agree with Jay 100%. If you're really worth following you should be able to gain that following without riding the coattails of others, especially folks that you yourself think are a douche.

Second, let's say you're that same person BUT you've stumbled across some cause or injustice that you'd like to aid. Maybe you've found a good person in your town who got a bumb deal and now they are in a position where they need help. So you start reaching out to folks and asking them to help you raise money for instance to help the person stay in their apartment for another month or buy some food for their family, etc. Again, awareness and association with social media elite COULD aid you personally but your motivation for this effort is pure. You are trying to reach as many people with a plea in as short of a time span as possible. So, if this is the situation... are you still a douchebag for reaching out and leveraging a douchebag?

Hmmmmm, I'm not so sure. Yes you're supporting someone doucheness but in a way you're doing a little social media jujistsu on them... leveraging their own need for fame to help your cause. Is that wrong? Does that make you and your cause a douche? Or are you just playing by the "rules" that someone else created?

Third, let's take that example one step further. You're a non-profit, a cause, or some other legitimate 501c kind of organization. Again, you're trying to raise money (for example) to move your cause forward. Anyone that has ever raised money can tell you that at some level it's a numbers game. You ask 1,000 people to donate $5 and some percentage will do so. Ask 10,000 and so forth, you start to raise real dollars. So let's say you're this non-profit and you start reaching out to douchebag, high-profile social media elite... because you're in search of lots of eyeballs.... are you now a douchebag cause? Or again, are you simply playing the game to advance your cause by leveraging someone else's ego?

And finally, fourth -- what if the douchebag in question is a legitimate player? What if they really are considered one of the leading thinkers in social media, digital, point-of-sale, email or anything else that is knowledge related. And what if your job/project/goal involves documenting what thought leaders are saying. And even though you may think them a douche, you're in the minority because they are widely regarded as a "thought leader? Then what do you do? Do you include them in your project/coverage/report or not? And if you do, does that make you douchier or just someone that can set aside their personal opinion in order to fulfill a role/job/goal?

In each of the cases above, I think the core idea may be in Jay's assertion that motivation plays a significant role in what you do. If you're motivation isn't pure, if it is just to achieve an end or a goal, then maybe you're a douche... even if your cause, goal or project is a just one and one that most folks would gladly support.

Honestly, I'm torn. It is so hard to gain awareness of anything these days, especially things that really matter or maybe aren't being pushed by the popular kids. The marketer in me wants to say, go for it. Do what you need to do to achieve that goal. But on the other hand, the person in me says, maybe Jay has a point. Maybe the goal isn't worth achieving if the only way there is over the egos of douchebags that you otherwise wouldn't have a beer with. 

But enough about what I've been thinking..... what do you think? 

photo credit: dpstyles

Tweet

And hey, if you enjoyed this post, please consider subscribing so you can have posts from this blog sent directly to your eMail in box. And don't worry, I'll never share your email with anyone and I don't send anything but blog posts... because that would make me a douche, right?

How well do you know your Tweeter?

Did you see the story about how this mistweet cost one KTVX employee his/her job?

The employee in question accidentally sent something meant for their personal Twitter stream over the station stream.

It's an honest mistake and one that, especially on mobile clients, is quite easy to do. You see mobile clients (as well as desktop clients) allow the user to send a tweet via just one, two or all of their social media networks. This makes it a bit easier to manage multiple accounts but it creates a huge opportunity for brand embarrasement.

Which leads us to an important question:

Should companies/brands have the expectation/right to follow/friend the personal social media streams of employees entrusted with managing or contributing to the company/brand's social media program?

You may say, whooooaahhh there Tommy... not so fast. What an employee does on their personal account is no business of the brand/client/company. That's not even up for debate.

Maybe, but respectfully, I'd disagree if that employee is one click away from accidentally posting embarrasing content via a company account. In fact, if I was writing a social media policy for a client or brand, I'd likely write that into the policy. Of course any employee that didn't want to accept that portion of the policy would be free to not play along, but then, they'd likely not have unfettered access to the brand's social media accounts.

Why would this even be an issue you might ask? Good question. Let's say for instance an employee has a habit of tweeting lewd content on their personal account. Maybe they like or love F-bombs or they make sexual inuendo comments or anything that might offend or piss off a brand's followers.

What if for instance they tweeted "Dude...busted for DWI...gonna be a long night" and that person happens to also tweet for a beer/wine/liquor brand?

Imagine if MADD got ahold of that tweet. Think they'd try and spin that into a PR shitstorm?

So you tell me. Should a company expect or demand that the company have real-time access to any employee's social media life if that employee represents the corporate brand online?

Tweet

And hey, if you enjoyed this post, please consider subscribing so you can have posts from this blog sent directly to your eMail in box. And don't worry, I'll never share your email with anyone and I don't send anything but blog posts... because that's not what your here for right?