Scalable Intimacy

Branding in the age of social media.

The Case Against Social Marketing

Posted on | March 1, 2009 | Comments

burrI need to get out more.

Sitting here with a 40 terabyte direct cranial link to people who agree with me, it’s easy to forget that lot’s of people out there still have good reasons for deciding NOT to take advantage of all that social media has to offer, at either the personal or professional level.

In deference to them, and in the spirit of trying to round out my own perspective, I offer you the Top 5 Perfectly Legitimate Reasons Smart People Don’t Take Advantage of Social Marketing:

1. It doesn’t make sense for our business.

If your business is intensely regulated, your primary target is either C-level executives or migrant workers, or exclusivity is a critical dimension of your brand persona, then social marketing is not for you.

That’s right, I said it. Feel better already.

2. It’s “hard to measure,” meaning there’s no proof it works.

Harsh, but fair. Oh sure, there are anecdotes, but how come everybody uses the same ones? “Blah blah blah Comcast / Zappo’s / JetBlue / Whole Foods / MOTRIN train wreck blah blah blah.”

Advocates might counter that the effects of all marketing are hard to measure, and that while the metrics in traditional media are more specific, they could be less accurate. A savvy detractor might respond that, while interesting, that presents no compelling logic to alter the status quo.

And she’d be right.

3. It lacks the reach to move the needle on numbers we care about.

Let’s say you’re Wal-Mart. What percent of active Twitter users would need to run out to your stores tomorrow to deliver a sales bump you could feel, and is there any way to make that happen in the foreseeable future?

The answer is 2,000,000 %, and no. That makes it a nice-to-have for them, not a must-have.

4. It’s labor intensive, and excess capacity is hard to come by these days.

Now imagine you’re the VP of Marketing at WhateverCo. To use nearly every other marketing communications channel, you write a check. To use social media, you read the summary sentiment reports, join a service, hang around for a while, find stuff to say, create content worthy of traffic, reply to other people’s blogs, read the new summary sentiment report, restructure your Web presence around dialogue, think of something to blog about, write your blog post, find a stock image for the post… C’mon, man. I have a day job.

In the immortal-if-profane words of recent convert Chris Colbert, “Social media is a pain in the ass.” And to outsource that pain in the ass takes headcount, which (in case you live in a cave) is one of the many things marketing departments are living without these days.

5. Brand development requires consistency of voice, not cacophony of “participation.”

Almost verbatim: “Look, I get paid to manage our brand. And having finally gotten the horn, string, and woodwind sections to play the same tune, you want me to hand over the microphone to amateur hour? I don’t think so.”

Man’s got a point.

Social marketing isn’t for everyone. Getting in now is making an investment in a capability some people believe will be valuable in the future. I’m one of them, despite knowing it’s not a mass medium quite yet, and recognizing that the tools to use it haven’t matured to the point where the medium is easy to leverage or control.

That’s how many marketers see it, fellow true believers – at least for now. We won’t advance our cause by ignoring them.


Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Category: Social Media 101, Web 2.0 Gurus
Tags: > > > > > >

Comments

  • well-said Mike - agree on all 5 points
  • Nice try, Mike, but while I agree using Twitter as a sales channel is a poor move, technology in lieu of pre-existing supply chain management is a benefit to invest. For instance, doesn't the company use RFID for barcoding and protecting its inventory? Imagine if RFID wasn't an option..back when it wasn't.

    Social media marketing may not be the answer for all, but that assumes CERTAIN tools and services, not ALL tools and services. I'm with you on the ubiquity of Zappos and Motrin, so how about email? How about mobile devices? You don't need a cellphone for the same reason you don't need an email address for the same reason you don't need blah blah. Of course you need it because it increases your productivity. Ditto for social media marketing.
  • Dell sold a $1 million worth of products on Twitter. That covers a salary surely?
    Lost in Atlantis theme park ride told 8 theme park communities of the new ride. No traditional media. Doubled attendance at park and 25 million media impressions online.
    ROI on online communities - brand recall is 5x higher than search engines, consumers come to your site for 5x as long, and 9x more often, customer service/technical support drops to 1/5 by offering peer to peer support forums. Not new ROI, from McKinsey in about 2001.
    Big Brother in Australia run a very active online community for their brand with 1 part time staffer.
    I teach one day workshops on metrics and analysis of social media. If anything there's too many measuring tools. Maybe you should come along? :P
  • I completely disagree with almost every point I'm afraid. Particularly as social media marketing is more than simply using online social networks - it's a change in business strategies and tactics.

    1. Intensely regulated industries might be a valid point, but Polish migrant workers in the UK have created one of the top social networks in the country, and rely on building relationships to find work etc far more than others. Banks etc are all advertising in Polish as well as English in my town.
    And exclusivity does not mean that potential and existing customers won't expect to reach you via the means they are using, such as Twitter, in preference to being forced to find a phone number.

    2. It's not that hard to measure, and there's plenty of proof it works - people use the same examples because they are notable for being done well, because people are lazy, and because there are still a relatively small number of companies doing it well. Many are small businesses and therefore open to the point that it doesn't scale etc. And I'm not sure that a savvy detractor can be judged to 'win' by claiming that increased accuracy (and valuable data) isn't a reason to switch from traditional marketing.

    3. Although Dell's $1 million in revenue from Twitter is small in percentage terms, it's a mistake to think this is the total revenue any company can expect from social media - it's still growing in scale and effectiveness, and we're only probably 20% of the way there - and Twitter, for example, isn't about solely Twitter revenue, it's also about reaching the right people to generate awareness and revenue outside of Twitter, replacing some of the traditional PR work.

    4. This assumes that the social media marketing approach is optional - or can't be managed through different departments. Although marketing need to supply the leadership and monitoring etc, in many cases they aren't the people who need to be connecting.

    5. Consistent monotony of 'brand' values is exactly why most people tend to rely on product recommendations from friends and family, and have done before the internet, and before the printing press.
    The 'cacophony' assumes someone would be listening to every touchpoint for a business - in reality they'll pick out the ones that are most relevant and meaningful for them.


    There are definitely smart reasons to delay jumping into social media marketing with both feet. The main one is to get your house in order first, and ensure internal communication and collaboration are being used effectively (although that doesn't rule out listening and private responses as a minimum).

    But although this post makes nice linkbait and a good starting point for debating, I think portraying the opinions as facts is totally misleading.
  • Interesting points Mike, but doesn't this depend quite a bit on how its being used?...

    1. Banks are pretty well-regulated now, but I have to tell ya, I would love a little more interaction with BofA. Or at least I'd like to know that they were listening. I've had continually horrible service from them, but have never had any indication that they're listening, let alone that they care. On the other hand, I'm not really sure I want my doctor out there tweeting my medical history. Though there is a Dr. in Williamsburg who just opened an office modeled after the old-school house visit mentality. He's making himself available via email to answer questions before asking you to actually make an appointment.

    2. Everything is "hard to measure". Most people (ie. clients) just don't understand the tools and metrics used to measure SM as well as they understand traditional metrics, so they discount them as band-aids or hocus pocus. Education could go a long way here.

    3. Sure, Wal-Mart probably couldn't run it's entire marketing effort via social media, but an effort to create stronger 1-to-1 communication via SM would stand them in very good stead. Maybe they wouldn't feel quite so...Wal-Mart-ish?

    4. If you're writing checks to someone else, why not hold one back and sue it to hire someone to cover the SM circuit in the interest of Whatever Co? Chances are, the cost of one good ad campaign would cover this person's salary, and the effect would, IMO, be far greater.

    5. Consistency of voice is often better accomplished through honesty rather than ass-covering.

    Not claiming right or wrong, just a few thoughts to fuel the discussion. Will be interested in seeing how it plays out!
  • On the subject of banks, look at the popularity and revenue generated by Martin Lewis and the MoneySavingExpert forum in the UK.

    Then tell me banks shouldn't be trying to help customers more - particularly when customers are funding many of them with their tax money.
  • Wow.

    First off thanks for taking the time to put together such thoughtful comments. The truth is I agree with many of your points, hence the other 99% of this blog.

    BUT... I stand by the post, primarily because I've heard every one of the comments in it from at least one real brand manager at a company you've all heard of. And while these "opinions" may not be "facts," I believe they accurately represent the perception of the majority of such brand managers, who are only now dipping a toe in the water of social media.

    Our shared objective is to promote the use of these media. To do that we need to follow our own advice... engage in the dialog, really listen. When I do that, this is what I hear.

    Do you hear different? Are my data points somehow unrepresentative?
  • Mike,

    I agree, we do need to carefully consider our own arguments as promoters of this type of engagement. This is something I've been thinking about a lot lately, as I've been trying to help a friend understand how to use SM to grow her small business. It's become pretty clear that most of what I'm saying to her doesn't compute. She's still constantly asking about print ads and how much to spend on advertising without giving consideration to what she can do with effort instead of money. And I've certainly worked with clients who displayed the same issue (including those who have said flat out "I don't believe in what you're doing/telling me to do.").

    I don't necessarily believe that this makes our point of view, or the value of SM, any lower. It does, however, indicate that we need to use care when selecting clients and try to teach, when necessary, as well as create strategies for said clients. Of course, if they're not willing to even consider the value of social media, then perhaps they're not the right people to choose to work with in the first place. A mistake we've all made at some point or another.

    What I'm getting at is that the fact that these arguments against social media exist, doesn't mean they're necessarily correct. It does, however, offer a good indicator that the person voicing them might be hard to bring around to a new way of thought (which is, without question, exactly what we're selling to most of these people).
  • Mike,

    I agree, we do need to carefully consider our own arguments as promoters of this type of engagement. This is something I've been thinking about a lot lately, as I've been trying to help a friend understand how to use SM to grow her small business. It's become pretty clear that most of what I'm saying to her doesn't compute. She's still constantly asking about print ads and how much to spend on advertising without giving consideration to what she can do with effort instead of money. And I've certainly worked with clients who displayed the same issue (including those who have said flat out "I don't believe in what you're doing/telling me to do.").

    I don't necessarily believe that this makes our point of view, or the value of SM, any lower. It does, however, indicate that we need to use care when selecting clients and try to teach, when necessary, as well as create strategies for said clients. Of course, if they're not willing to even consider the value of social media, then perhaps they're not the right people to choose to work with in the first place. A mistake we've all made at some point or another.

    What I'm getting at is that the fact that these arguments against social media exist, doesn't mean they're necessarily correct. It does, however, offer a good indicator that the person voicing them might be hard to bring around to a new way of thought (which is, without question, exactly what we're selling to most of these people).
  • Amen.
  • tjcnyc
    Fascinating: almost 100% commentary and 0% debate. True believers vs. infidels.



    I've been a traditional ad agency guy, a digital agency owner and now a client. This may or may not have given me wisdom. But, I do have perspective. And,as Alan Kay once said, “Perspective is worth 80 IQ points.



    1. During the first internet bubble, I met a prospective client from a big company. A hot interactive agency had been in to pitch. They shouted: "You don't get it! If you don't have a web strategy your company is dead!"



    Perspective: The hot agency today? Dead. The big company? Thriving. Lessons?



    2. When your whole job is social media, you're only seeing one part of the picture.



    Perspective: You may think marketers are idiots. But, you have opinions about one thing. They have data about a LOT of things. Is all their data really less valid than your opinions?



    (CONT'D IN NEXT COMMENT)
  • superblankman
    So, for me, this post brings up something else, the idea of what exactly is the end purpose of Social Media? Is it to help companies or consumers? Is it to help Consumers or people? Is it to help people or persons? At the end of the day, I feel like Social Media is the beginnings of the ascension of the individual to be on par with the corporation. The fact is that for the last hundred years, the person has been losing out to the corporation. Mass market has and will continue to about "big numbers" that are not readily understandable by humans, where Social Media is about persons ... one-to-one ... be it company-to-person or person-to-person.

    Just my 2c :)
    Great post. Thanks.
  • tjcnyc
    CONT'D FROM PREVIOUS COMMENT



    3. Social media people tend to hang around with like-minded people, read the same blogs, go to the same conferences. This isn't surprising. But it also isn't a good formula for having your pet beliefs challenged.



    Perspective: General George Patton once said “If everybody's thinking alike, somebody isn't thinking.” He's right. Are you sure you're breathing enough fresh air?



    For me, social media is one more tool in the toolkit. I think it has the potential to be hugely important in some situations, for some brands. I also think it has sharply limited application in other situations. It's not the holy grail and it's not a sacred cow. It's a tool.



    If my point of view seems crazy, here's a challenge. Set aside all your beliefs and see if you can think of a great 6th reason to Mike's "Case Against Social Marketing".



    If you're as smart as I think you are, I'll bet you can come up with more than one. And you can do it without compromising your beliefs.
  • Wow, I feel like writing A Different View on this but I will put some thouthts here. I disagree with almost every point in this, and I am one of the largest skeptics of Social Media Marketing. The question addressed here is the wrong question.

    Marketing is an active management of brand and for most companies and associated activity of turning that brand into saless opportunities. The real quesstion is whether Social Media is realistically a tool for brand management at most, and a arguably can only address a subset of that, which means it can only have a fairly small impact on an overall marketing program.

    All decisions are made on a subset of the information desired, great managers use limited information and their superior ability to extrapolate or infer the rest. The most compelling argument against Social Meddia Marketing is that it only reinforces information most companies already have, or can infer from the that information.

    So the question is can it ever be used to drive sales creation or is it just another tool in the brand management quiver? If it can't drive sales then it is an expensive way to get people to tell you what you could ask your neighbor.
  • I think your 5 reasons are great. Social Media isn't a cure all, a strategy, or the key to turning around your company. Several companies in fact do very little social media marketing and do quite well: BMW, Nike, Apple, and McDonalds to name a few. I could easily argue that brands doing poorly or that have a poor image seem to be the ones embracing social media: Comcast, Ford, GM, etc.

    The biggest problem with social media is trust. Check out this post and the data http://www.thekmiecs.com/marketing-advertising/wh... - many people are on the fence about trusting the social media marketers. Well, if you can't trust the people carrying the message, can you trust the brand paying the person you don't trust?

    Let me offer 4 more reasons:

    1. Your product sucks. Investment into social media would be like gas on a fire.

    2. People don't actually want a 1 to 1 relationship with the brand. It's like getting an evite to a party. The first thing you do is check who else is going before you decide.

    3. Juice Aint Worth the Squeeze: The number everyone likes to point to is Dell's claim of generating a million dollars via twitter. Well what if it took 3 million dollars in time, salary, hardware etc. to generate that 1 million? It's a net loss.

    4. Your Customers Aren't as Smart As You: It's been long said, that if you asked people how to improve upon radio you would never have gotten the TV. And id you asked early TV owners how to improve the TV you wouldn't have gotten the remote, Plasma/LCD, or even color. I've really interested in what happens with Tropicana. What if they revert to old packaging and the sales tank? Sure, they listened to their consumer and in doing so lost money.

    Great points and certainly food for thought regardless of what side of the argument you are on.

    Personally I don't think social media is a critical part of every single company's business and marketing plan. However, for some industries and many companies it's an amazingly powerful tool.
  • "Men would rather die than think. Many do." - Bertrand Russell
  • On my mobile, which will affect my writing.

    Companies/organizations, including regulated ones, engage in community relations to reach influencers. Not pure play mktg but still has an effect on business environment, public opinion, willingness to recommend, & other aspects worth considering.

    If your community is there, you need to be there listening, same as monitoring trad'l press.

    Does the mktg dept think it's just fine if 1000s of people read a negative newspaper piece or see it on TV? When there's a serious negative you respond first in the medium where it appeared (& just hope others don't pick it up).

    The direct effects of negative coverage are difficult to measure but nonetheless real. Why ignore these media spaces?

    I'd have more (& better writing) if it weren't such a pain to keep scrolling back up.

    Final point: You could have made all the same points without the direct personal confrontational tone toward other professionals. Just linkbait? Then I guess social marketing does matter.

    @BarbChamberlain
  • Mike, the problem isn't that Marketing Directors see this as their present day "truth." The problem is that these were the exact same things they were saying 5-10 years ago about why they didn't need to get online or have a Web site (doesn't make sense, no proof, no needle, too much work!). Our job isn't now, and wasn't then, to step backwards, feebly, and take a check for a TV ad instead. It was to educate, inform and lead. If someone is hiring you as a marketer and you're not providing this, you may not be around that long.

    There are a lot of things that don't make sense to do to marketing a business or organization at any given time. That doesn't mean that they're all malarky. They may just not fit, or the people in the company may just not be ready for them.

    And the Valeria comment was out of line. It's one thing to rant to get publicity, like the Ad Contrarian. If you want to do that to get eyeballs, fine. Show some respect, though, man.
  • My guru pokes were meant as sarcasm, not sensationalism. I meant no offense, and have removed them all.
  • Mike,

    I'm hardly a social media evangelist and often skew toward the skeptic, but this post leans much to far past critical and on toward the grossly inaccurate. I don't mean inaccurate about social media, but inaccurate in terms of the basic tenants of marketing and communication.

    1. Regulated businesses need to be even more sensitive to listening to social media because the conversation about those companies can prompt investigations. Conversations happen whether or not the company is there. In fact, I just passed a note to my friends at a major utility because they have an unhappy customer writing a whole series about their lack of customer service.

    2. Social media can be measured. It's very easy, but you have to understand marketing and strategic communication enough to set the measurement to tangible outcomes.

    3. Reach is situational. If you're using social media to engage your existing customers, then it make sense.

    4. It's only as labor intensive as you make it. Time management skills might make it more easier to mange or outsourcing some functions makes it easy.

    5. Advising companies to avoid social media removes any chance that they can manage their brand online. Simply put, people will discuss the brand with or without you, which means not participating is what leaves it up cacophony of “participation.”

    So smart might very well be the wrong operative word. Ignorant might fit better.

    I will agree you with that there are a great number of people misapplying social media, attempting to position it as something more than a communication tool. However, this post is simply the same thing, in the other direction.

    Hope I was able to help you consider an alternative view.

    All my best,
    Rich
  • I don't see why there has to be so much controversy here. There are hundreds of thousands of companies in hundreds of industries. For many of them, social media will mean little. For the reasons mentioned. For others, it makes great sense.

    It just takes blog posts like this to point this out.
  • Thoughtful and on topic, Richard, thank you. My thoughts:

    1. Fair point, but is listening to social media is less than participation in it, which is less than activation of it. My view, YMMV: http://scalableintimacy.com/?p=408

    2. I have no doubt that it can be, and you may know better than I how difficult a prospect that is. But I know that today it rarely is, in part because it is perceived as being so hard.

    3. Fair point. Even for Wal-Mart, in certain circumstances.

    4. Again, I am attempting to fairly represent the perception of non-believers here, and believe I did.

    5. Couldn't agree more ( http://scalableintimacy.com/?p=108 ). Can you agree that some significant percentage of marketers have yet to see it as we do?

    Perhaps we differ, though it seems more likely that the circumstances of your arrival put you in a defensive posture. Regardless, I'm glad you came, and added your perspective.

    And I just subscribed to your blog, so keep 'em coming.
  • Mike,

    I wouldn't characterize my posture as defensive, especially in comparison to the post. But you may, sure.

    I can agree that a great number of people see social media differently, with those on either extreme headed in the wrong direction. Both can drive people away from even discussing it. Listening is the first step toward responding, online or offline, which is a level of participation.

    But more to the point. For those who would be cynical as opposed to critical about it — what they seem to miss in all the discussions is that they are participants whether they participate or not. Non-participation is an action, with outcomes, after all.

    For example, just because you will not pick up the phone for a reporter doesn't mean that there will not be a story. Likewise, if a customer posts something about your company, in public, on a blog, some people will be affected by it.

    Ironically, companies pay more attention to private correspondence than public correspondence from customers. How is that practical?

    Companies spend millions of dollars trying to reach publics, and study after study shows they are participating as much as 31 hours online (eclipsing television), but some companies don't want to be available there. How is that fiscally responsible?

    Companies spend thousands on television advertising to a public that skips there message while a top 20 show nowadays is an audience of only 6 million (perhaps half that, when you omit those who don't watch commercials). But they are not willing to engage a customer who is looking for them on the Internet. How is that logical?

    I can agree with you that not all social media methods are good social media practices. But the logic of omitting it all together is like omitting telephones simply because someone prefers to meet in person. In the end, people who close off a communication stream will drive customers elsewhere.

    Best,
    Rich
blog comments powered by Disqus