I’ve been doing some research recently into brands presence/activities on social media platforms and while I’m hoping to write something more structured in the near future, I wanted to share some early thoughts (it as a public note to self as much as it is, hopefully, a conversation starter).
On and all marketing activities on social networks sux. It’s actually fascinating (frustrating?) to see how sharp is the contrast between (bloggers’) words and (brands’) practice or, put differently, between theory and reality.
This is in fact the topic of my Age of Conversation chapter - the contrast between bloggers’ chatter and jabber and brands actual activities on social media platforms, particularly social networking sites.
“You only get to be prominent in SNS by earning trust and respect”
“It’s about giving value first”
“It’s about building relationships”
“it’s not about you, it’s about them”
“Don’t think of it as another advertising / promotion channel”
“If you want to participate in a community, you have to enrich that community”
You are probably all too familiar with the spirit of the above mantras taken from blogs and bloggers’ presentations (including this blog). This is what we passionately preach for. But if you look around, what you’ll see is mainly what Russell best described as the marketing web vs. the web that people use.
Brands activities on SNS are naturally riding on hype waves. Two years ago we saw the golden rush to create MySpace pages, then the property-boom-turn-desert(ed)-islands on Second Life and recently brand pages on Facebook sprung up like mushrooms after the rain. I now read bloggers urging brands to engage with their consumers with twitter etc.
The truth is that the vast majority of brands’ presence on social networking sites I’ve seen falls into three categories:
1. Useless, purposeless, lifeless brand pages
2. Advertising, promotions and coupons pages
3. Short term campaign pages with some competition / freebies mechanism
So, is that it? That’s all we can come up with? Is this the case of unimaginative clients and/or agencies? Simply herd thinking? Where is the value in freebies?
Or maybe there is no place for brands on social networking sites at all?
To be honest, I don’t have an answer to these questions. All I know is that just because they can doesn’t mean they should. And, yes, experimentation is fine, but you need a reason, a clear purpose. Otherwise it simply looks lame and it can even damage your brand (although admittedly, a page that no one ever visits can’t do much harm, it’s just a waste of money).
Another recurrent mantra is that brands should use social networks as equal users/members - the same way that people use social media. From what I’ve seen this rule only works well for small local brands and can be really bad for big national/global brands. When big brands start talking like the girl next door or like local indie shop it’ll most definitely look lame and makes you wanna shout, the emperor is naked!
If you are fortunate enough to be a brand that has a community of amorous fans, you should tap into these communities, listen to what they say and try help them to do what they like to do anyway, as well as surprise and delights them etc. But if you’re not one of these, I’d advise you to stay out, or just listen because it’s quite sad to see big brands trying to find a date on facebook.
The only social media platform that stands the test of time and doesn’t feel like a passing fad is blogging. Surely there are some insignificant brands’ blogs but the few dozens great one that I know have a strong sense of purpose and direction. These blogs are organic part of “the conversation” not just a bumper sticker (read Macks fantastic reports here)
The social web is a venue and engine for value creation for both users and brands. Your best hope is to think long term. Invest TIME in creating and strengthening connections (think like Dell, P & G and even starbucks) and hopefully relationships with your online customers. There is a LOT of listening involved, especially at first. The conversation can happen later, after you have a better idea of what to say. Yes it will take time, and yes it will be a lot of work. And if done properly, will be worth every second.
What do you think?
Can you please send over some examples of really good social media activities, if you find any to prove me wrong?
Comments 2
Amen to that. I’ve been giving it some thought for a while now. I believe that its the legal considerations that disable brands from having a conversation with people.
I therefore think we need an intermediary. Someone who speaks for an organisation and has influence with a particular brands big kahunas but can’t isn’t paid by them for it.
There’s a ‘we are what we share’ part to this too but I don’t want to give it all away in public. I do have to bill people for this advice occasionally!
Posted 11 Jun 2008 at 3:20 pm ¶You summed up some of a conversation I’ve recently been having.
Charles - the intermediary idea is interesting. My first gut response was this: How would you get someone to endorse a brand without being paid to do it and how would that brand then ‘manage’ that relationship. So ingrained is that kind of relationship that any other seems almost impossible.
But actually, why not? Why not ‘give away’ that endorsement (from blogger to brand or the other way around). When it’s free - it’s also free to walk, which makes both parties behave more responsibly. Maybe. Just thinking out loud here…
Posted 16 Jun 2008 at 4:21 pm ¶Post a Comment