At many of the conferences I attend, I often hear the more fundamental social mediaites make proclamations that marketers have to be active in many social networks. That if you are not in FriendFeed, Plurk, BrightKite, Viddler, Utterz, Seesmic, Spock, yadda, yadda, yadda as well as all of the usual suspects then you are getting passed by (image: social networks hype cycle by fredcavazza).
Most of this energy seems to revolve around personal branding and being a social media “rock star.” So now donned thought leaders by the following of several hundred or more, these individuals try to pass their secrets of success to companies, often under the guise of social media experts. But what about the actual advice?
Bullshit.
Yes, from a corporate standpoint, you need to have strong monitoring program so you are aware of what is being said about the company. Yes, you need to need to participate when issues arise. Yes, as a marketer you have to be familiar with a variety of general social networks.
But, personal branding is not corporate branding. Corporate branding is about a commitment, a very specific promise to a core group of stakeholders. Unless you are a mass consumer brand, it’s not likely that you need to become part of every social network. Instead, basic strategy dictates targeting towards communities of strategic importance: The few where most of your stakeholders are congregating. The rest are just a waste of time. It’s about building a community, not broadcasting messages.
In most cases pursuing every single possible Long Tail hit is really just a waste of time (Harvard Business Review just questioned the validity of Chris Anderson’s vaunted theory as a silver bullet solution). Why? Because if you are an IT services company, it’s probably not an effective use of time to play on MySpace to reach 50. Instead, serious activity on IT Toolbox with its 2 million members makes much more sense.
Even from a personal branding perspective, what are you trying to achieve? Popularity or community? Notoriety or relationships?
Personally, I get much more from being a relatively obscure Plurker with 100 friends than Twitter with the 2000+ following me (see what Plurkers said about this topic). Why? Because the community is small enough that I can have an actual conversation. Twitter is so out of hand after 500 or so that I can’t keep track of it anymore. It stopped being truly social after 1000.
Social media is about people. Customers are people. Social media marketing is about networking and community participation with the right few, from which relationships are developed, in turn creating results. Otherwise you are looking for the instant WOMM bullet. Attainable, but difficult in a media form that lends itself to organic development. Instead, own the right few social networks, and participate in the rest as monitoring necessitates.
Geoff,
You make a lot of great contrarian points here. You’re absolutely correct that too many people in this echo chamber think their goose is of the gander. Each organizatopm has different needs, goals, means and ends. All of us understanding that may make our future conversations a little less frustrating.
There is no magic wand … but if Harvard says it, there is no magic bullet. Neo-Cons;-)
GREAT post!
It sounds simple, but so many get this wrong. It’s why I don’t like the term “expert”, though still think “expertise” is important.
I also think that good strategic planning is important — knowing where to listen and when (and even why). As you say, it’s not about the many, but the few ;)
Geoff, I agree totally with your assessment that from a business standpoint the key is finding, and engaging with, what you refer to as “communities of strategic importance.” Knowing how to use all the shiny new tools is fun, but it only brings value to a business when you take the time to identify where their key constituents are spending time online and then make that a focus of the limited time available for social networking.
We have to stop treating social networks like a popularity contest and realize that, in the business world, they are tools to facilitate connections with a community. The tools may change, but the fundamental need to engage with the people who talk with you, for you, and about you will stay the same. And it doesn’t matter whether it’s the tool du jour that “everyone” is talking about. It needs to be where you can have conversation with the people that are important to your business. Thanks for validating the idea that it’s not the size of your stick per se, but how and where you use it. Always a pleasure to read your insights.
David, Gavin, Connie and Amber: One of the reasons I love social media is that influentials – a la the Tipping Point — are easily identified. It makes marketing easier within niches. At the same time, as we all seem to be experiencing, the hype about social media has become something else.
I guess the message is rely on marketing fundamentals, and Don’t Believe the Hype! We all agree it’s who and why, not how many.
And as you said, Amber it has come down to who has the biggest stick now. Guite frankly, I thought I graduated high school twenty years ago (ahhh, that’s scary!).
It also helps to know the actual overlap among “targets of strategic importance” across the different social networks.
Despite the hype about the desirability of data portability, my guess is that your target influentials (or whatever you want to call them) won’t be hopping around as much as people suspect.
Well said, Geoff – the level of narcissitic chest thumping and volume of echo chamber music is deafening (and this from a person that has reached his 5,000 friend limit).
I love the distinction between personal and corporate branding, there should be a top 10 list of A-listers who trump themselves over there companies – the funny thing is many of us know them, yet still follow them …quite the paradox.
I would say that corporate brands struggle with social media which at its very essence is an intimacy medium. the inabaility to acheive scale within any one network forces them to believe scale might be achievable in a number of them, I have some sympathy here — they are either right in having their brand linked to the top 15 networks or need to yield to the notion that traditional media/marketing has role in their mix to achieve scale.
Regardless, nice pillory of the elite social media class.
Word. There is no value in being everywhere, unless you’re assessing all the platforms for comparison purposes. Find where your audience is and meet them there. Your audience, p.s., is not everyone.
And what about sleep? Dang. even if you’re fully immersed in just two online communities, it can be a time suck. Social networks are no place for introverts (like me) to play. If you get your energy from other people, go for it. But if energy comes from “quiet time” then Facebook = Vampire.
(applauds)
Someone on Twitter earlier this week asked, “How do you keep up with all the social networks?” My reply was, “You can’t and why would you anyway? It’s like eating everything from the buffet, better to chose a few or indigestion sets in.”
It is the year of social network fatigue my friend. Good call.
Geoff, thank you. I really appreciate your contributions. @Kami, GREAT analogy.
It is unfortunate that so many of these “A-listers” ping away without listening, let alone conversing. Eventually the breeze will die down and there will be very little holding them up… maybe.
Excellent post and some great comments as well. I, like many of you, have to make choices. Can’t do everything and do it well. Not unlike anything else in life! Kami’s buffet metaphor hits it right on the head.
Everybody has left fantastic comments. I have nothing to add other than my gratitude for these prior remarks.
Hi
As newly registered user i only want to say hi to everyone else who uses this board :D