PULL Inc. Blog

Could Social Marketing be an Oxymoron?

by Thomson Dawson

in Marketing Communications

The number one topic and trend many CMO’s are integrating into their marketing mix is the use of social media. Marketers are trying to figure out how to get their brands invited to the social conversation, so they can do more marketing. In my view, social marketing is an oxymoron.

Marketing is not exactly a “social” activity. Often, it’s a rude interruption. Regardless, the term “social media marketing” is now firmly established in our current marketing lexicon.  Many marketers continue to struggle with determining which discipline owns the social media effort within their organizations. Is it in the domain of advertising, PR, HR, IT? Social media, for all the attention it receives, is still largely a jump ball. The new breed of folks who will drive, create and maintain marketing communication content through all the social media platforms are still unformed and mainly siloed .  Who ever owns the social media initiatives, the big job is to get the marketer embedded in the “social”, and once there, pile on the  “marketing”.  The truth is consumers are not listening. Here’s why:

There is no place for marketing in social media.

Think about being at a party having an enjoyable conversation with someone of like mind, then some annoying person interrupts your conversation to tell you how great they are and why you should engage with them. This is basically what most  “social marketing” really is.  People hate being interrupted.

Most marketers now hire some form of  “digital” advertising agency to provide the expertise to execute marketing campaigns in the social media space.  Here’s what most marketers and their agencies do not get–digital advertising is still advertising!  Advertising is an interruption. More so within the context of our user controlled, crowd-sourcing social web.  The social web is a real live conversation. It’s not a media pipe that marketers can own to shove messages through.

As a “media business”, Facebook and Twitter (the most successful social platforms) are still not big money-making media businesses like their traditional cousins (TV, print, outdoor) have been. I’m not suggesting they won’t be highly profitable someday, but right now they’re not. The reason is simple–the social web is by invitation only and marketing messages are not welcome. All of the social media platforms continue to struggle with the design of an advertising revenue business model that will not destroy the fabric of the social conversation they have thus far enabled.

There are exceptions.

This is not to say that marketing messages don’t go “viral”– many do. Unlike the social sharing platforms, YouTube  (and other video sharing portals) are now pretty close to being what traditional broadcast has always been. The only difference is the ability for people to pass the content links around. Sharing links is the social part. What makes content worthy of being shared is usually associated with an entertainment value, not necessarily the marketer’s embedded sales proposition. However, entertaining people is not enough to earn admission to the tribe.

The Evian babies spot above is a good example of an entertaining viral message. Because of it’s paid-placement, the spot has been viewed by nearly 2 million people on YouTube. A case could be made that it was a successful test because the marketer has decided to roll it out into traditional broadcast media. To me, this is just traditional paid advertising re-purposed. I wouldn’t call this social media marketing because it’s not a two-way conversation.

How to get invited to the conversation.

Marketers want to get consumers “engaged” with their brand, and the web is where most of us are these days.  You don’t get invited to the real conversation by plastering blinking banners everywhere. Social media is about contribution and sharing, not selling. It’s about being an invited participant to a tribal conversation because you have first added value to the tribe. The best way to get invited is to be trusted. Brands earn trust just like people do– keep your promises, be cool to people, add value to the tribe first, make a difference over time.  Nothing new here. A recent post from Mashable The Social Media Guide offers an interesting story on how a few brands are using social media to create real world connections. You may find that interesting as well. When your value proposition is a welcome part of the conversation, it’s value will naturally be shared with others, When that happens you’re no longer marketing, you’re contributing. When you’re contributing you’ll be remarkable. We used to call this good ‘ol word-of-mouth.

How is your brand contributing to the tribe in which it seeks to belong?

{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }

Ray Welch December 30, 2010 at 2:09 pm

Although I left you a comment on your conversation in LinkedIn, I thought it would be appropriate to leave it here too. I hope you don’t mind.
___
I’m not sure I agree with your article.

While it is true that marketing is not traditionally a “social” activity, social media marketing is not traditional marketing.

It seems to me that you are talking apples and oranges.

Social media marketing is about engaging with your customers and clients. It is about taking part in the conversations that are happening about your brand and/or company…and being able to do it in real-time.

Any company that applies the “intrusiveness” of traditional marketing to their social media marketing campaign is destined to see it as a failure. The ROI and metrics for measuring success in social media marketing versus traditional marketing are not the same. More importantly, the process for implementing a social media campaign is far different than that of a traditional marketing campaign.

Print, radio and television advertising are tools. Social media is no different. It is a tool used to inform people of your product, brand or company. But print, radio and television advertising is…well, advertising. And it’s intrusive. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. is about participating in conversations.

I do see where you were going with your post, after reading the last paragraph. And, I agree. The secret is contribution and participation…not overt selling.

Regards,

Rudro Sen January 5, 2011 at 1:14 am

The article is thoght provoking.

As with most worthy articles providing marketing insight, this too can be debated this way or that, for or against. However, what our ‘tribe’ must remember whilst delving into hiterto unchartered territory is not to draw parallel inferences from our existing basket of experiences.

Social Media Marketing (SMM) is not an exact parallel to Print, Radio, Tv or Outdoor. So to infer that the reasons, logic and basis of SMM is akin to traditional media might be an error of understanding the evolving nature of the medium. None of us know how SMM is going to evolve 5 years from now, as we never knew SMM 5 years ago, at least as much as we do now.

Currently, it is the most silent method of ‘tribe’ formations. Best described as ‘good ol’ word of mouth’. The more silent it is, the more unencroaching it becomes (and that’s the real challenge for marketers) the more it can delve deeper into the prospects mind and may be, just may be, generate a two way dialog process.

SMM will become ‘social’ as and when this dialog starts generating and the marketer would have immensely succeeded in creating a path for the future. Currently very, very few brands and agencies are recognising this subtlety in SMM and are being instinctively drawn into the quagmire of ‘shout about what you got’ kind of approach.

The article appropriately highlights this tectonic shift of apprach in SMM.

Regards

Rudro Sen

Thomson Dawson January 5, 2011 at 11:21 am

Rudro– I like your thought about a “silent method of tribe formations”. And I agree, no one can possible know how this trend will develop into the near term. What I find particularly interesting, is the amount of gurus out there claiming highly specialized expertise in how to guide marketers in the use of this “new tool”. To set the record straight– I am not an expert in social media marketing.

I sure appreciate you reading the piece and leaving your comment here.
Thank you,
Thomson

Neil Hopkins January 18, 2011 at 12:06 pm

Hi Thomson

Great piece – thank you.

My thoughts on SMM are that the shouting “LOOK AT ME” approach that used to sell product in print is entirely wrong. As has been stated, it’s about social interaction, adding value to a tribe and transferring value from there.
The consumer is much more savvy, educated and discerning – read “more easily able to filter out noise”; and shouting is just noise…

A while ago I proposed a new marketing model – BIIR (http://interacter.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/ill-have-a-p-please-bob/) – where social fits very firmly into the Integration and Interaction concepts. This is, I believe, where SMM should be focusing – working out where it can integrate with the consumer to bring value and then on the interaction to create that value…

Hope that’s all of use and interest!
Neil

Thomson Dawson January 18, 2011 at 12:43 pm

Neil–thanks for the thoughtful comment and the link! Indeed, consumers are increasingly discerning about what gets into their hearts and minds. All interactions begin with a like-minded connection.

all the best,
Thomson

Leave a Comment