mediabizbloggers.com  
commentary

Social Smocial - Matthew Greene - MediaBizBloggers

Matthew Greene
Share |
Matthew Greene -- Click on the photo - read Matthew Greene's archives.

Published: January 12, 2010 at 06:39 PM GMT
Last Updated: January 8, 2010 at 06:39 PM GMT

By Matthew Greene

Whoosh… look, up in the sky! It's a bird. It's a plane. No, it's the unrelenting thud of marketers wasting their time (and mine) on social media to drive traffic and transactions on the Interweb.

According to today's eMarketer article based on a September '09 MarketingProfs survey conducted among both B2B & B2C marketers (http://tinyurl.com/yblparr), a common refrain is "marketers found that the marketing tactics most often used on social sites are not necessarily the best ones."

Why is this? Well, it's because of grotesquely out-sized expectations among the brand manager classes that Social Media represents the best (spelled c-h-e-a-p-e-s-t) method of reaching consumers with an authentic and engaging brand voice.

Because I attend all of the fantastic iMedia Summit events, and also happen to be the founder of an interactive marketing services agency, I get to live inside the bubble of the digital media realm and see the swirl of offerings, strategies, technologies and triple-screen availabilities all day long. In fact, because 'emerging media' such as Social, Video and Mobile are hot topics, iMedia created a Summit called 'Breakthrough' which is unique in that it is open to both senior Brand Marketers and Agency personnel—and focuses exclusively on these topics.

And without a doubt, the bulls-eye of the Breakthrough Summit is Social. I can literally hear the sound of all (or most) of the air being sucked-out of the room whenever Social is being discussed in a panel session, or during a Keynote speech, or sponsor presentation.

No doubt, the stunning growth of social media and corresponding usage demands that marketers pay attention to it, and that major brands such as P&G or Unilever or Virgin America blaze trails in the category in an attempt to make it work against a specific set of objectives.

However, all the noise surrounding the social craze has somehow validated the idea amongst the ad budget holders that THIS is where they should focus their digital strategy, along with precious marketing dollars. And I say, that's crazy!

It's the equivalent of a big brand saying we're pulling all of our traditional media dollars and share-shifting entirely to the Web, Social and Mobile because that's where the hoopla is. I see it happening. This disavowal of other digital media forms in favor of Social.

I hear it from prospective new clients who want 'buzz.' I saw it when a major fast food company who had done zero advertising in digital channels told me they were going to conduct a 'test' with social media as a method of getting their franchisees stoked about digital. Much to my verbalized chagrin, that was the last $500K that that specific QSR spent on the Web. The deafening thud heard 'round the Web when that lead zeppelin crashed put the kibosh on any future digital consideration. That's such a shame because I know how to sell more hamburgers on the Web and drive restaurant visits using all other digital channels, with a dash of social thrown in, but there is simply no way that social can lift burger sales all by its lonesome.

So dear reader, let me ask you. How can I socialize the idea that Social can indeed play a role in one's overall digital marketing plan, but a right-sized role, maybe 15% (max) of total budget?

Matthew Greene has over twenty-five years of strategic advertising and marketing experience working with blue-chip companies. Matt can be reached at matthew.greene@blueribbondigital.com

Read all Matthew's MediaBizBloggers commentaries at Media Malfeasance - MediaBizBloggers.

Follow our Twitter updates @MediaBizBlogger

To communicate with or to be contacted by the executives and/or companies mentioned in this column, link to JackMyers Connection Hotline.

archive

add this social bookmark link


Post a Comment
  1. Name or nickname:
  2. Email:
  3. Comment:
Reader Comments(3)
Since you asked, Matthew...

As a fellow 'mature marketer,' I agree with your poke at today's young brand managers jumping willy-nilly on the 'social marketing' band wagon. I disagree that they are doing it primarily because they think it's the cheapest media out there (although they're likely using that line with their bosses and CFOs!) -- their primary motive is to be seen as insightful leaders of the pack. Ironically, an 'investment' in social is going to prove them to be lemmings!

So, how to convince these 'marketing mavericks' that anything labeled social will rarely lead to sales? Very simply by pointing out the difference between totally appropriate spending on PR (an attempt to earn goodwill and win 'free' media mentions and inter-consumer buzz at low cost) and spending on marketing efforts.

Anything labelled 'social' is, and always has been, a PR medium. No more, no less. When we spend money on PR, we don't EXPECT ROI, we hope for it. Kind of like Unilever Canada's so-called 'investment' in the "Bridezilla Wigs Out" YouTube video of a few years ago -- an experiment that led to lots of buzz, but zero ROI for Sunsilk.

Today's new 'social media' are no more appropriate for carrying advertising messages (marketing efforts) than the last 'social medium' that came along, the telephone. Once marketing people (not all of whom are all that insightful...) 'get' the distinction, we'll be back to looking for the next great marketing-appropriate wave and 'social' will return to its rightful place in the PR budget.

More at: http://advertisingbusinessmodelredefined.blogspot.com/2009/10/comment-on-mediapost.html
Posted at 05:44 AM on Jan 12, 2010 by kevinlenard
Good post, Matt. There is intense pressure on marketers to squeeze profit from a set of consumers who are underwater on their mortgages.

It's no wonder that some are praying that deus ex machina has arrived in the form of a Twittering bird.

In my opinion, social media has a tremendous role to play in some categories (travel leaps to mind) but can be far less consequential for other categories.

The rush to experiment with social media is temporary and not entirely negative. The clients and agencies who find a way to do it right will reap the rewards. And those who flop will rush off to find the next BSO (bright shiny object) that promises salvation.

I'm encouraged by the disciplined experimentation I see at leaders like Unilever and Procter and Gamble, and the wackier stuff being tried by Crispin Porter.

Maybe this is how progress has to happen: it starts as a messy, lunatic free-for-all but eventually finds its balance.
Posted at 06:25 AM on Jan 12, 2010 by Tom Cunniff
These are both great comments and thanks Kevin and Tom for your insights!

Kevin - I'm apt to agree with you that Social is the proper realm of PR scientists, who for the 1st time, can carry-on dialogs directly with their consumer by-passing the editorial staff of a given media outlet. Inversely, they can invite the media to participate, follow, lead a social campaign. I suppose it could be argued that Social gives both the consumer AND the marketer more control, or at least have a more 'honest' 2-way dialog.

Tom, couldn't agree more with you, either. Travel, Food, IT and more are terrific playing fields for Social...no question.

I have, from time to time also found myself entering a Social conversation, er, like just yesterday...someone posted their support for Conan called 'I'm with Coco' on Facebook which I saw, shared, and others in my circle shared with their pals. It was fun. Engaging. And a strike for the underdog Conan! For all I know, this effort was created by Conan's writers w/backing from NBC (or Fox?) and designed to heighten tensions @ NBC, get as much PR for Conan as possible, and make his departure from NBC that much more lucrative. Bravo(!) whoever created I'm with Coco, whoever you are!
Posted at 06:53 AM on Jan 14, 2010 by matthew greene