Social Media Myopia

Social media strategies are bullshit. It’s a thought crystallized by the swarm of social media experts and aficionados descending on Austin for SXSW. To be honest, I’m not even sure why it had that effect exactly. Maybe it was the 80% iPhone penetration or what the Romans called the “twitterati ubiquita.” I do think it’s largely a product of what those tools do, not just what they are, but it’s hard not to scratch your head when you say tweetdeck and there are no scrunched faces. Particularly when something like AOL community gets 4 times the traffic. The jury is clearly still out on whether twitter is an essential personal tool or the second-coming of second life.

But here’s the thing, social media is something that you are, not something you do. And when you talk about it like it’s another channel, it becomes an add-on to an existing infrastructure, not the transformational cultural shift that it should require.

Don't get me wrong, there are great social media broadcasters out there. They have tons of friends, fans or followers. But their issue is that they're not really taking full advantage of their sphere because people are coming together around a brand asset already held. And frankly, that doesn’t require all that much strategy. Coke might have a good fan group on Facebook, but that doesn't really come from anything other than a shit load of existing brand reputation. Or more simply, it's easy to get a brand talked about when everyone likes talking about them anyway. If I were the social media agency for pot, I could just start a facebook group and get 250,000 fans pretty easily and look like a hero.

But that’s really the point I think, the brands that are positioned well for facebook or twitter or myspace or whatever we’re talking about tomorrow, are so because of who they are, not what they do in any one channel. For companies to thrive, what we should be talking about is something much more fundamental, much more cultural and important than you might be able to talk about if they’ve slotted you or your company as “those guys getting us facebook hits or views on youtube.” If that’s all it’s about, you won’t be left with much when those platforms are gone. And considering that Google, a company just moving out of the dorm room 10 years ago, would be the closest thing to the quaker oats of internet brands, I’d consider the transient nature of the web to be a high-level concern for all of us.

Which is partly why I’m so taken by transmedia planning, and why I don’t consider it just a new branding technique, but the central consideration for the ad industry to not just survive year after year, but thrive through a media landscape that will look much different in 5 years. Is what we’re doing building communities, not through a series of platform tactics, but the exploration of who we are and what makes us important to them?

Do we matter?

(by the way - read Mike's take on the use of Social Media. Or how it's been used. Well worth it.)

UPDATE: These new numbers from Nielsen indicate twitter is up to 7mm uniques, twice the size of aol community, and they were roughly equal just in December, so I stand corrected on that point.

Comments

[Gavin Heaton]

Great post, as always, Pauly. Have you read this:
http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/haque/2009/03/ideals.html
Yes, things have to change. In fact, things HAVE changed ... but are we yet thinking about all this in a new way or are we using old lenses with new frames?

[Danny (@AmongMany)]

Really well thought-out Paul! I agree that the goals and ideals of social media won't do any good for a company until they live it, instead of just trying to "do" it. But the idea of putting together a strategy to help them get there may not be terrible. We have to take baby-steps in many ways to help clients understand this new way of thinking. Otherwise it becomes overwhelming and they run scared.

That being said, if they're not going to bite then it's probably hopeless. I've worked with a couple of clients recently who just didn't "get it". And I don't mean that we weren't explaining it in a way that was digestible for them. I mean they just weren't EVER going to "get it". It's too far outside the realm of thinking for them. Some clients will always cower in a corner at the thought that maybe their brand doesn't belong to them...

[David Gillespie]

Paul, you say so much so right. I spend a lot of time thinking about intent , which is entirely powered by who companies are, not where they choose to engage.

I'm with you on transmedia planning too, so powerful, and we're only just seeing the tip of the iceberg. Check out Gavin's link above, Umair Haque will make your day :)

[laurent]

“Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to
victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise
before defeat.”
-Sun Tzu
The doing helps the thinking/being and the other way around.
I agree that technology isn't the core debate when it comes to social media. It's about brand (or should I say enterprises) and their market. That should come first. But there's something in the very nature of social media that's different from existing marketing techniques...I'd like to summarize it as intent vs investment. In advertising, you would calculate the ROI: clicks vs $; in social media, your intent (transmitted by employees in contact with the ecosystems) is what will brings the return.

[James Comerford]

Great post as always. It looks like you aren't the only one who is fed up with social media strategists, take a look at http://katiechatfield.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/guest-post-peter-bray/

[Paul McEnany]

Gavin - absolutely brilliant article! It's an extension of the same old argument - people focused on tactics, not strategy, on means not the ends, never really seeing the forest through the trees. Thanks for passing along!

Danny - I agree that a strategy of how to get to a good place in social media is important, but I guess what I meant is that the act of separating out social media as something other than focusing on what makes a brand interesting inherently makes it a missed opportunity. So it's not that strategy is bad, but that strategy with blinders on is bad.

David - you were definitely right! Fantastic article. Thanks for the comment!

Lauren - I think we're in agreement. There is definitely something very different in social media. I guess what I'm saying is that it's different because it forces companies not only to create different messages, but be different things entirely. So it's not really about one thing or another, but the sum of all of your interestingness combined with your ability to act like a human and not a shill. Thanks for taking the time to come by and comment!

James - Thanks for passing along the link - I'm a big fan of Ms. Shouty, and you and her dubbing Peter's post as important means a lot. That said, I sort of think Peter misses the point a bit, too. I got the feeling his rant against the social media expert was mostly that we hadn't figured it out yet. Like we've figured out television, radio and newspaper. I guess I would say, it's just not about that either. As a company, either your interesting or your not. People either talk about you or they don't. Social media just tends to maximize the things that are already talkable.

So - if you're failing in social media, maybe it's not necessarily that you haven't figured it out, it's just that nobody really gives a shit in the first place.

Thanks for the comments, guys!

[Gunther Sonnenfeld]

Thanks to Joseph Jaffe for Tweeting this...I echo the sentiment of those commenting here, you are spot on, Paul.

To your point in particular about the "Twiterati", how can their be elitism in a form of expression that is about reciprocity and being equitable, about being "in line" with everyone else?

I find this very annoying, and it also seems that this behavior points to something that is counterintuitive to transmedia planning: being fearful of all types of media, including "traditional". These designations delineate actions, not experiences, and we are the experiences that define what social media is and can be.