A recent article in Marketing Mag just crossed my desk thanks to a twitter post. The article speculates on marketing via social media, and questions how effective it really is. Specifically it mentions writers (calls them ‘gurus’) such as Seth Godin, and states ‘the consensus is that online and social media marketing does work when it’s done well, and the Godins of the world know what they’re talking about…they saw it first’.

Note the language there. The writer does not specifically state that Godin knows what he is talking about, he only concedes that the ‘consensus’ is that he does. The writer then goes on to question the value of online social media, pointing out ‘a few still-lonely voices have made a good case for a more cautious approach, suggesting the promise of social media has become far greater than the reality’.

I’m all for casting the pale eye of reality at social media. Not long ago, I attempted to deflate some hype by pointing out a study showing over seventy percent of Canadians don’t know what twitter is.

However, to suggest that everyone is jumping on social media prematurely, and a few lonely realists are questioning the value is quite bizarre. The media space is jam-packed with people dragging their feet regarding adopting social media programs. There are far more people in radio, television, and print that are reluctant to adopt interactive media than those that are eager to get into it.

Did Not Get The Memo

There is no shortage of people in decision-making positions doubting social media effectiveness. This is not a case of a few grounded realists in a tide of over-hyped enthusiasts. In fact the situation is quite the contrary. If it weren’t would the minister of culture have needed to reform the qualifications for funding through the Canadian Media Fund to mandate interactive media?

Brands can not afford to give a massive edge to their competitors by ignoring interactive media. This includes almost all industry sectors.

Godin and others write strongly specifically because the tide is still very much against recognizing the effectiveness of two-way interactive marketing. The budgets are still very much biased to traditional media, whether such media is effective or not.

It is All One Media

Can traditional media be dropped? No, absolutely not. That is crazy talk. It is quite effective when combined with interactive media. By now it seems almost silly to make distinctions between the two when they tie so strongly to each other if done well. The pace of technology is combining them regardless of what anyone does anyway. There will not be different medias for much longer, at least from a consumer’s perspective.

What I find really lacking in the article was the all-relevant discussion around time. Social media marketing is slower, and needs to be maintained over time. It must be truly two-way communication. Traditional media launches campaigns for specific durations, then tends to move on to the next campaign. If you’re trying to do social media the way you do traditional media, then no, it’s not for you. If instead, your company is full of people who love what they do and like to talk about it, and you’re willing to enable that and further support it by appointing sociable people to manage it, then yes, you can enjoy a steadily growing group of brand fans over time. It will cost less, take longer, and build lasting value.

If you don’t want it to take quite so long, you can boost it with traditional media. The problem after that may be sorting out those that really should not be part of the core group you are building with social media. It can get diluted with new members that add little value.

Nor did the article talk about money when discussing whether social media marketing was worth the effort. How much did the traditional media campaigns discussed cost compared to the online campaigns? This is most certainly a factor in determining return on investment, but is not discussed at all.

The article did quote Tara Hunt a lot though. I took in her presentation at NextMedia. She mentioned that she could not understand why her call to Rogers resulted in unsatisfying service, but the moment she posted on twitter about it, a rep direct-messaged her.
“Why not use that money to get more people on the phones?” she reasoned.
The answer should be fairly obvious. On twitter, more people are likely to know about the response being offered, compared to a one-to-one phone call. That was the whole reason she posted her dissatisfaction to twitter in the first place.

The conclusion of the article, voiced as though social media were being questioned in hushed tones in back rooms, was “It’s about time someone said this publicly”.

Well actually people have been saying this publicly forever.
Perhaps it doesn’t seem so because blogs and social media have been very good at dissemination of a different message.

Wait a minute…if individuals writing blogs can create such a massive and overblown hype for social media, does that prove that it works over time?