There are, no doubt, a few good reasons for some business endeavors — in particular, professional service enterprises — to have concerns over the use of social media. For example, lawyers, doctors and accountants cannot be perceived to be offering legal, medical or tax advice in any media marketing context — social or otherwise.
I believe every concern I’ve heard can be addressed; but I’ll also cop to believing the benefits of conversations with clients and targets far outweigh concerns — provided, of course, ethical and regulatory issues are appropriately addressed.
Smoke screens notwithstanding, it is that “conversation” idea that may be the real roadblock. Many company leaders — from the C-Suite to the boardroom — don’t know what to do with so-called social media because it allows for instant feedback and (almost) forces conversation. This is a far cry from a view of media efforts as one-way communication “campaigns,” allowing for carefully framed messaging and perceived ultimate control. (Never mind the possibility that a message might completely miss its target while swallowing up huge amounts of company resources.)
So, to the degree that the idea of employing social media as a part of a marketing and communication strategy is problematic, here are three thoughts that might help us frame the discussion anew.
- The ultimate goal of any marketing effort should be two-fold: to enhance the brand, and to move forward on a continuum that leads to a new or deeper relationship with the target. Nothing accelerates the establishment and deepening of relationship like the give-and-take of conversations.
- Real-time feedback affords actionable marketing intelligence; and nothing is more “real-time” than a conversation with a constituent, client or target.
- Any opportunity to engage with a target audience is an opportunity to deepen a relationship — even when the opportunity emanates from an issue or problem. The best company leaders recognize negative feedback as an opportunity to win.
If, to some significant degree, you believe these three points, we have 3/4ths of the framework for a new way to talk about social media. The final piece? Don’t call it Social Media. To the uninitiated, the term “social media” conjures up images that, at best, have little to do with business. At worst — come on, you know what images at this end of the spectrum look like.
If you’re experiencing challenges as you discuss social media with other leaders in your organization, change the discussion. Create a new label.
One suggestion: focus on the fact (and build conversations around the idea) that relationships trump everything. I believe the goal of marketing professionals and company leaders is to facilitate deep, meaningful relationships that endure. Those relationships deliver return on investment…and become part of a customer-based marketing community. That community will let us know (in unmistakable fashion) when customer experience and marketing message do not align.
Put another way: if we hope to build relationships, we’d better have a platform for meaningful dialogue with clients and targets.
What should you name social media? In my view it builds on the concepts of conversation and relationship. My guess is what we call it changes, depending on the audience. (Ghosts of Communication Theory 101.)
This is such a super-excellent idea to present Social Media under a different name. There are companies that I talk to that have put every roadblock firmly in place. You are correct about the conjured up images of Social Media.
I want my clients to experience the same connections and relationships that have lead to return on investment that I have. I think of the book, “Who Moved My Cheese?” by Spencer Johnson, MD where he sets forth the handwriting on the wall….one of them “The Quicker You Let Go of Old Cheese, The Sooner You Can Enjoy New Cheese.”
Maybe the new name for Social Media is “Tasty New Cheese!” Other suggestions….Solution-based Relationship Building; or Authencity Building; Authentic Communications. Well, I’ll be interested to follow other comments.
Thank you for this thought provoking discussion.
Eric,
Great article! Thoughtful, insightful, and timely.
You’ve captured what I’ve been trying to preach (with varying degrees of success), i.e., removing the “media” from the moniker when looking to incorporate the social component into overall business and marketing plans.
I’ve found that just by grouping these new technologies under the clunky heading of “social tools and technologies,” the box opens up. It then becomes easier to talk about how to use what’s available across a wider range of the organization, from research to product development to customer communication to customer service.
Doing so also reinforces what these tools really are – TACTICS, techniques and methods for furthering organizational business objectives and marketing objectives. They are TOOLS, not an end or objective in itself. And, they are also more than a “marketing channel.”
Removing the word “media” also helps to mitigate what I call “Shiny New Object Syndrome,” a malady that’s pretty prevalent these days http://bit.ly/awXlV1 . Lord knows we all could stand help staying away from that disease!
Now, if we can just come up with a better name for what we’re talking about…maybe we could start that as a full blown conversation in and of itself (you’ve certainly lit the fuse here).
Thanks again for this thoughtful post. I look forward to seeing what others have to contribute to the discussion.
Cheers,
Ted
Follow me @tedlsimon
Discussions about Social Media are compelling because it is an emerging technology, worthy of debate, and as public relations practitioners, marketers and business owners struggle to balance the relevancy of social media in planning, the focus on relationships with customers and the public is appropriate and critical to success.
As SMEs consider allocating resources to social media, I advocate that it needs to be part of the overall mix, and goals need to be clearly defined.
SM is not magic and I am pleased to see discussions begin to avoid outputs (number of fans/followers) and instead to track results. It’s worth noting that while traditional broadcast campaigns may sometimes not meet expected ROIs, they are measureable, and are becoming more integrated. Newpapers and TV ad buys often include web advertising and click through links.
Learning to measure and assign value to social media is gaining importance. Participating is no longer the yard stick; it’s results.
Regarding the use of the term Social Media, I agree that is does a disservice to the potential of the various tools.
Contrary to other commenters, however, I propose that the concern is not with the word ‘media’, but rather with the word ‘social’.
Media is simply plural for medium, and where medium is channel or tool, it can include newspaper, posters, radio, TV, video etc. In fact, as mentioned, mediums are crossing platforms and merging online newspapers, blogs, etc.
The Internet is a medium and should be considered part of your media mix as a tool to reach market segments.
The term social however, while accurate in the academic-cultural arena, has different connotations in common everyday language : fun, parties, personal banter, gossip etc like social butterflies around the watercooler discussing trival matters.
For marketing coms plans, I prefer the term Interactive On-line Media instead of social media.
It is a more complete descriptor and includes tools such as Linked In, blogs, e-zines subscriptions, that are not as social in nature as twitter and facebook, but do exist to engage and interact with audiences, customers and the public.
If we use a serious label, the credibility of the tool and its relative value to any campaign will be more seriously considered.
Social media is in such common use already, that change will be difficult, and I agree must be used first and foremost to convey understanding to the audience. For example: I’m preparing a learning session for business owners, and believe the term social media will be what helps them understand what the session will be about.
Just a thought. Appreciate the opportuntity to add to this topical discussion.
Lorelei
follow me @pinnaclecomms
Eric,
This is a really interesting post, at several levels…including what I am ‘thinking’ your point is, as well as how others are engaging it.
First of all, I believe the issue you are addressing is that of organizational leaders who will not engage social media because of the ‘non-business/non-professional’ image the moniker carries.
Therefore, I understand your 4 points to be: 1-3; – create clear objectives and measurable ROI to ensure strategic planning, execution, and evaluation of social media initiatives; 4 – come up with a new name that says ‘social media’ in the Type-A language of C-level executives.
If (and that’s a big ‘if’) my understanding of your point is accurate, then I agree with you *in the context of working with certain types of leaders.*
The issue I am uncomfortable with is laying a blanket need to rename ‘Social Media’ across the board. In the line of work we do, words matter. And language is always about more than just those words. Meaning is both implied and understood, and for communication to happen there must be a message and an understanding of that message.
What I’m saying is this: Social Media is a strong way to describe this field, based both on fundamental definitions of “Social” and “Media,” as well as it being a term that includes a broad range of relational engagement points and also unique demographics of people. From 6-96, the term “Social Media” at least gets us all close to being on a similar page of what we mean. All of the other terms suggested are nebulous or obtuse to some degree…and are meaningful to another degree. With ANY word there must be context, relationship, and agreed meaning for communication to happen.
I would submit that it is the ability to work through what social media is – the demand of relationship in communication – that ultimately is the real hill to climb…rather than simply coming up with a different name for the hill.