Been thinking a lot lately about the whole social media (SM) movement and how it impacts the advertising biz. Also been trying to figure out the challenges SM faces in becoming part of the advertising mix. A lot of time when you hear about examples of companies doing it well, say Zappos.com, and yes, they're cool on Twitter and all, but is it because they're using social media that they're good or are they using whatever tools they can to connect to their audience because they're good.
This inner dialogue was moved along by a recent posting, Is it time for Social Media yet? - Search Engine Guide Blog, which talked about how SM was gaining traction. Here's what they had to say:
The corporate adoption of social networking sites increased from 27% to 49%, Online Video adoption rose from 24% to 45%, blogging more than doubled from 19% to 39%, wiki adoption rates increased from 17% to 27%, and podcasting almost doubled from 11% to 21%. The only technology asked about that didn't wildly increase was adoption rates for message / bulletin boards / forums, which increased from 33% to 35%, but I'd say that's because it lies more towards the mature end of the social media toolset.
And it frustrated me because they talked about things that seem not to be part of social media, like online video. I mean, how is that really different from broadcasting? Same things goes for podcasting, although I guess people do expect more feedback from a podcast. But is it really a social media? And I would have to argue that a lot of brands are using sites like Facebook and myspace to run ads, that they're not really doing anything social there.
I think one of the biggest challenges is that no one can really define it. At least, no one has defined it when I've asked. And any definition I've seen is so vague, that it pretty much covers everything you can do. Take a look at Social media - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
Social media is the use of electronic and Internet tools for the purpose of sharing and discussing information and experiences with other human beings.
Doesn't that kinda' sound like all media? I mean, everything we do in this business is about sharing and discussing information and experiences with other human beings. How does that help as a definition? Is it just that it's focused on electronic and internet? Would that make letters to the editor, which seem to be social media, not social media simply because they're not delivered through an electronic media? That doesn't seem right.
During a twitversation yesterday with Mack Collier (who I like, BTW!), he had two thoughts about what made something social media:
Well, again, the first one can really cover everything you do. By that definition, broadcast TV is social media. After all, look at how many people gave feedback during the famed Nipplegate fiasco? That fit both pieces of Mack's definition, since she certainly didn't expose her breast for money -- well, maybe she did!
But I can go back to my youth with some examples:
How about Soupy Sales and the famed New Year's Eve incident:
On New Year's Day 1965, miffed at having to work on the holiday, Sales ended his live broadcast by encouraging his young viewers to tiptoe into their still-sleeping parents' bedrooms and remove those "funny green pieces of paper with pictures of U.S. Presidents" from their pants and pocketbooks. "Put them in an envelope and mail them to me," Soupy instructed the children. "And you know what I'm going to send you?A nice post card from Puerto Rico!" He was then hit with a pie.[4]
Several days later, a chagrined Soupy announced that money was unexpectedly being received in the mail. He explained that he had been joking and announced that unreturnable contributions would be donated to charity. As parents' complaints increased, WNEW's management felt compelled to suspend Sales for two weeks.
Certainly people both interacted (kids sent money) and gave feedback (parents complained a lot!), and monetization wasn't his first goal (he was actually pissed about working on New Year's Day), so this would fit the definition.
Or how about Winky Dink and You? During his show, viewers were encouraged to draw on the TV screen a missing item (say a bridge crossing a river), so the hero could get safely from one place to another. Winky Dink also left the airwaves because apparently lots of kids drew on the TV screen but not enough of them had purchased the special Winky Dink screen that went over your TV screen and they were drawing directly of their TV sets. According to Wikipedia, even Bill Gates called this the first interactive TV show. Learn more at Winky-Dink and You.
Lastly, what about Quisp vs. Quake back in the 70's? Probably not the first time it happened, but Quaker actually asked folks who should remain and the loser would stop being made. When Quake lost, it was actually pulled from the shelves for a while, although it did come back sort f redesigned. BTW, a grocery store in Wayne, NJ now sells Quisp for any of you boomers who really miss it!
You see, I think that once again, our inability to articulate what social media is makes it very hard for clients to figure out how to use it. Last August, I asked What Does It Mean to be Digital? because I felt we had the same problem with digital as we do with social media. If you either can't tell me what it means or it means everything, that how much value will it really have for me? While asking in the twitterverse a few weeks ago about this issue, buddy Tom Cunniff had this to say:
Anything that can be consumed by more than 1 person can be defined as "social media". But doesn't it dilute meaning to zero?
Yep, I agree. We really need to figure out what the hell we're calling social media and how it really fits into business planning. Too often it seems that we're really just renaming something to make it seem hipper & cooler then it really is. I know we're marketing folks, but we really can't just keep renaming things too much longer before people catch on!
So, what does social media really mean and can brands that aren't really all that social in the first place, use social media to open themselves up? And, what about Naomi? (See Love of Chair for that answer!)
Link: Twitter / TJCNYC.
Link: Twitter / MackCollier.
Link: Twitter / zappos.
Related links
Link: Experience Manifesto: Are Social Sites this Centuries Penny Press?.
Link: Experience Manifesto: The Measurement Excuse.
Link: Experience Manifesto: Why Advertising Will Destroy Social Media.
Link: Experience Manifesto: Prediction 8: Everyone's a Critic.
Hi David, thanks for taking your time to see us in May.
Great post with some very good questions! In Denmark we are struggling to find out if there is true value in the social media sites or if its mostly "hot air".
Posted by: Thomas Stack | August 26, 2008 at 03:13 PM
Honestly to me, I don't really care about what falls under the 'social media' umbrella, and what doesn't. What I want to make sure that companies 'get' is WHY these tools, no matter what you call them, are important.
Like podcasting. You could make a case for it being social media, you could make a case that it's not. But the case I am interested in (from a consultant's POV) is can it help Client A grow itself? If it can, I want to explore using it as a tool to do just that. If it can't, then let's move down the list.
I always say it, but don't focus on the tools, focus on the connections that the tools help facilitate. What happens as a RESULT of social media is MUCH bigger and more important than blogs or Twitter or Friendfeed. Not even close.
Posted by: mack collier | August 26, 2008 at 03:18 PM
How can making money not be a company's primary objective? Monetization and direct marketing are not synonyms, but the purpose of marketing is to make money. If this is not true, please hook me up with a marketer that manages a P&L and got budget approved with this argument. (I would like to short the stock.)
Posted by: Peter Kim | August 28, 2008 at 09:33 AM