Classic subject.

I'd suggest another point of failure centers around CONTROL. How much to exert over the campaign, how to react when the conversations evolve and metaphorize over time. The beauty of this "tactic" is its vibrancy but that can be a double-edged sword.

Agencies and clients need to have more mature grown-up conversations that establish boundaries BEFORE a campaign launches. Few brand managers are comfortable just letting these campaigns go unchecked, agencies need to assist them in feeling less protective. Likewise, its not the agency shareholder value that goes down the tube if the campaign runs amok.

Control is not the favourite word of any social media person. Rightly so because too much control will stifle. On the other hand, ALL relationships need boundaries that the participants know and understand. Establish what those boundaries are (agency and client) and ensure the folks you're asking to participate understand them too.

Classic subject. I'd suggest another point of failure centers around CONTROL. How much to exert over the campaign, how to react when the conversations evolve and metaphorize over time. The beauty of this "tactic" is its vibrancy but that can be a double-edged sword. Agencies and clients need to have more mature grown-up conversations that establish boundaries BEFORE a campaign launches. Few brand managers are comfortable just letting these campaigns go unchecked, agencies need to assist them in feeling less protective. Likewise, its not the agency shareholder value that goes down the tube if the campaign runs amok. Control is not the favourite word of any social media person. Rightly so because too much control will stifle. On the other hand, ALL relationships need boundaries that the participants know and understand. Establish what those boundaries are (agency and client) and ensure the folks you're asking to participate understand them too.

Agree with this post and offer the idea that in traditional PR many people work pushing information/product/service in one-way conversation mode. Social media brings with the the implication of conversation being two-way and often companies don't know how to approach that. As with any community/friendship-building it's about engaging with your audience and that's an ongoing effort. Is the ROI worth it? Sure...but you can't measure it in a period of a month or two...but if companies take the time to really build that online presence, nurture their community and focus a little more on two-way conversation when they are ready with a campaign they'll see the results. How you measure those results is a WHOLE other topic but I'll leave it at that for now. :)

Agree with this post and offer the idea that in traditional PR many people work pushing information/product/service in one-way conversation mode. Social media brings with the the implication of conversation being two-way and often companies don't know how to approach that.

As with any community/friendship-building it's about engaging with your audience and that's an ongoing effort. Is the ROI worth it? Sure...but you can't measure it in a period of a month or two...but if companies take the time to really build that online presence, nurture their community and focus a little more on two-way conversation when they are ready with a campaign they'll see the results.

How you measure those results is a WHOLE other topic but I'll leave it at that for now. :)

Remember when there were way fewer marketing and PR types singing the praises of social media? It was almost like being part of a secret club. We expermented, discovered, exchanged with one another... and fundamentally respected the new world we were exploring. We were passionate .. actually interested in this communications shift. Now social media has hit the mainstream. Which is great. Clients are interested in it and the rest of our industry is starting to try it out for themselves. The problem is that they're trying it out without taking the time to understand that social media is about tribes. It's about conversation. It's a long term initiative, not a short term fix or a flash in the pan campaign that should go *viral*. I'm of the opinion that you're not qualified to advise your client about blogging, podcasting, social networks/media and the rest of it unless you've actually jumped in yourself with both feet. Otherwise, it's like teaching a child to do the backstroke when you've never bothered to get into the pool (deep end or otherwise) yourself. Don't get me wrong. I love that I'm not alone in the desert anymore. I just hope that clients who are being led down the social media path by those who have jumped on the bandwagon without taking the time to understand it don't get turned off and become cynical/jaded.

Remember when there were way fewer marketing and PR types singing the praises of social media? It was almost like being part of a secret club. We expermented, discovered, exchanged with one another... and fundamentally respected the new world we were exploring. We were passionate .. actually interested in this communications shift.

Now social media has hit the mainstream. Which is great. Clients are interested in it and the rest of our industry is starting to try it out for themselves.

The problem is that they're trying it out without taking the time to understand that social media is about tribes. It's about conversation. It's a long term initiative, not a short term fix or a flash in the pan campaign that should go *viral*.

I'm of the opinion that you're not qualified to advise your client about blogging, podcasting, social networks/media and the rest of it unless you've actually jumped in yourself with both feet. Otherwise, it's like teaching a child to do the backstroke when you've never bothered to get into the pool (deep end or otherwise) yourself.

Don't get me wrong. I love that I'm not alone in the desert anymore. I just hope that clients who are being led down the social media path by those who have jumped on the bandwagon without taking the time to understand it don't get turned off and become cynical/jaded.

Remember when there were way fewer marketing and PR types singing the praises of social media? It was almost like being part of a secret club. We expermented, discovered, exchanged with one another... and fundamentally respected the new world we were exploring. We were passionate .. actually interested in this communications shift. Now social media has hit the mainstream. Which is great. Clients are interested in it and the rest of our industry is starting to try it out for themselves. The problem is that they're trying it out without taking the time to understand that social media is about tribes. It's about conversation. It's a long term initiative, not a short term fix or a flash in the pan campaign that should go *viral*. I'm of the opinion that you're not qualified to advise your client about blogging, podcasting, social networks/media and the rest of it unless you've actually jumped in yourself with both feet. Otherwise, it's like teaching a child to do the backstroke when you've never bothered to get into the pool (deep end or otherwise) yourself. Don't get me wrong. I love that I don't feel alone in the desert anymore. I just hope that clients who are being led down the social media path by those who have jumped on the bandwagon without taking the time to understand it don't get turned off and become cynical/jaded.

Remember when there were way fewer marketing and PR types singing the praises of social media? It was almost like being part of a secret club. We expermented, discovered, exchanged with one another... and fundamentally respected the new world we were exploring. We were passionate .. actually interested in this communications shift.

Now social media has hit the mainstream. Which is great. Clients are interested in it and the rest of our industry is starting to try it out for themselves.

The problem is that they're trying it out without taking the time to understand that social media is about tribes. It's about conversation. It's a long term initiative, not a short term fix or a flash in the pan campaign that should go *viral*.

I'm of the opinion that you're not qualified to advise your client about blogging, podcasting, social networks/media and the rest of it unless you've actually jumped in yourself with both feet. Otherwise, it's like teaching a child to do the backstroke when you've never bothered to get into the pool (deep end or otherwise) yourself.

Don't get me wrong. I love that I don't feel alone in the desert anymore. I just hope that clients who are being led down the social media path by those who have jumped on the bandwagon without taking the time to understand it don't get turned off and become cynical/jaded.

I'm about to launch an iPhone app and I know how important marketing will be with well over 200,000 apps now available. One must not rely on iTunes search to be found.

What a great post. I feel like I've just spent a couple of hours at a seminar but never left the breakfast table and didn't pay a cent.

Thanks very much.

Paul Kaufmann

I'm about to launch an iPhone app and I know how important marketing will be with well over 200,000 apps now available. One must not rely on iTunes search to be found. What a great post. I feel like I've just spent a couple of hours at a seminar but never left the breakfast table and didn't pay a cent. Thanks very much. Paul Kaufmann

"Simply put, campaign-based social media without the basic foundation of an ongoing presence to support it is, more often than not, doomed to fail."

I pretty much agree with this conclusion and the points which precede it. A "campaign mentality" when it comes to social media can be a likely cause of death. There are times, perhaps when a campaign surrounds a news event, that social media may have a short and intentionally limited life span.

But creating a presence and having a longer timeline with slow and steady results instead of an immediate but short-lived flash in sales or traffic is key. Good article, Dave.

"Simply put, campaign-based social media without the basic foundation of an ongoing presence to support it is, more often than not, doomed to fail." I pretty much agree with this conclusion and the points which precede it. A "campaign mentality" when it comes to social media can be a likely cause of death. There are times, perhaps when a campaign surrounds a news event, that social media may have a short and intentionally limited life span. But creating a presence and having a longer timeline with slow and steady results instead of an immediate but short-lived flash in sales or traffic is key. Good article, Dave.

REASON #5:
YOU'RE WASTING TIME MANUALLY PROMOTING ON FACEBOOK!!!

[link removed by admin]

Unlimited mass messaging, commenting, liking, adding, etc without getting banned!

REASON #5: YOU'RE WASTING TIME MANUALLY PROMOTING ON FACEBOOK!!! [link removed by admin] Unlimited mass messaging, commenting, liking, adding, etc without getting banned!

I was a member of a paid community (subscription based social network from 01-09) then they abruptly closed it down. The problem with the site was even though they had a community they were always ignoring it. They would never update the website or follow through with promises they had. The ironic thing is this was before Facebook and Twitter and when they finally hired a social media coordinator who could bring the site back to its heyday they closed the site. Which they had brand ambassadors and everything. They could have learned so much more and since they were making a small amount of money off the site they could have had a gold mine of everything. This site was raising a lot of money for charity with events, bringing in people from all over the world before Facebook and Twitter. So I know about a community which was closed. It is a really sad situation when you think about it. Plus, this community did wind up having a lot of one way communication in it too. We would never know why it was not updated or anything. So I can tell from personal experience why it would be a bad campaign. Even if it was pre FB and Twitter.

I was a member of a paid community (subscription based social network from 01-09) then they abruptly closed it down. The problem with the site was even though they had a community they were always ignoring it. They would never update the website or follow through with promises they had.

The ironic thing is this was before Facebook and Twitter and when they finally hired a social media coordinator who could bring the site back to its heyday they closed the site. Which they had brand ambassadors and everything. They could have learned so much more and since they were making a small amount of money off the site they could have had a gold mine of everything.

This site was raising a lot of money for charity with events, bringing in people from all over the world before Facebook and Twitter. So I know about a community which was closed. It is a really sad situation when you think about it.

Plus, this community did wind up having a lot of one way communication in it too. We would never know why it was not updated or anything. So I can tell from personal experience why it would be a bad campaign. Even if it was pre FB and Twitter.

Papa said, "Son, you're just a slave to fashion
If you don't hunker down and blog with passion."

Papa said, "Son, you're just a slave to fashion If you don't hunker down and blog with passion."

I totally agree to the idea of instant gratification that most people have when starting with whatever is the "new cool thing", be it twitter, foursquare, and the like. Also, it amazes me how people still believe those who actually sell "proven" formulas to achieve something (followers, traffic, etc) from thin air in a very short time. But good stuff...

Thanks!

Iulian

I totally agree to the idea of instant gratification that most people have when starting with whatever is the "new cool thing", be it twitter, foursquare, and the like. Also, it amazes me how people still believe those who actually sell "proven" formulas to achieve something (followers, traffic, etc) from thin air in a very short time. But good stuff... Thanks! Iulian

One thing that people do or why their social media sucks is they spread themselves too thin.

For a LOT of companies (even major corps) there are usually one or two people doing social media (and they also have other tasks), but for some reason they try to utilize 10 different social media tools.

I always say, okay, lets pick one or two to start and do THOSE really well and then expand from there. Of course if you have more resources to start, start bigger.

One thing that people do or why their social media sucks is they spread themselves too thin. For a LOT of companies (even major corps) there are usually one or two people doing social media (and they also have other tasks), but for some reason they try to utilize 10 different social media tools. I always say, okay, lets pick one or two to start and do THOSE really well and then expand from there. Of course if you have more resources to start, start bigger.

David, May I venture to say that it should be a 4 steps process such as: target/listen/engage/develop. Listen isn't a very scalable process ;-). You can talk to many people at once but listen only to one at a time. So may be one person can listen to 100 alltogether (i.e: they read 20 conversations a day coming from any of those 100). Thus a team of marketers can listen to several hundreds max depending on their time. So the question becomes: How do you choose those few hundreds? If you 'monitor' you gonna get lots of conversations from all over the place to listen to. One day you may listen to some from some folks, another day to others from other folks..you loose consistency in term of who you listen to. To us (here at eCairn), the trick is to cut through the clutter and find the few hundreds that matter, who are part of a virtual community that's relevant to a brand and who aggregates 1000 times more alltogether. Thus the target/listen/engage/develop where the target becomes the few hundreds who matter. Laurent

David,

May I venture to say that it should be a 4 steps process such as: target/listen/engage/develop.

Listen isn't a very scalable process ;-). You can talk to many people at once but listen only to one at a time. So may be one person can listen to 100 alltogether (i.e: they read 20 conversations a day coming from any of those 100). Thus a team of marketers can listen to several hundreds max depending on their time.
So the question becomes: How do you choose those few hundreds? If you 'monitor' you gonna get lots of conversations from all over the place to listen to. One day you may listen to some from some folks, another day to others from other folks..you loose consistency in term of who you listen to.
To us (here at eCairn), the trick is to cut through the clutter and find the few hundreds that matter, who are part of a virtual community that's relevant to a brand and who aggregates 1000 times more alltogether.
Thus the target/listen/engage/develop where the target becomes the few hundreds who matter.

Laurent

Dave, I think it's because some are stuck in PUSH mode, old school approaches that as you said, are scalable and easier to quantify like paid media. The time and investment it takes to develop these social relationships naturally and organically as you say, is often overlooked and underestimated. #4 is the biggie: it's not just 1 or even 2 way. Like you mentioned, if the engagement is siloed into one-off campaigns, there is no point. It's about having the marketing work with CRM work with tech support, work with PR, get feedback, turn that over to R&D and so on.. something substantive to build on. If you're just promoting, talking but not listening, you are doing a disservice to the campaign and missing the bigger picture. FWIW.

Dave, I think it's because some are stuck in PUSH mode, old school approaches that as you said, are scalable and easier to quantify like paid media. The time and investment it takes to develop these social relationships naturally and organically as you say, is often overlooked and underestimated.

#4 is the biggie: it's not just 1 or even 2 way. Like you mentioned, if the engagement is siloed into one-off campaigns, there is no point. It's about having the marketing work with CRM work with tech support, work with PR, get feedback, turn that over to R&D and so on.. something substantive to build on. If you're just promoting, talking but not listening, you are doing a disservice to the campaign and missing the bigger picture. FWIW.

David,
Good info. It's hard to believe so many advertising and PR agencies don't understand this concept yet, let alone large companies.

I think this switch is more profound than businesses realize however. They need to understand that the key to success in social media is opposite of traditional media in every way.

It's "cheap," long-term and never ending, not expensive and short, as your post explains.
It's about attracting consumers because they want what you're offering, not interrupting.
It's about hiring former journalists and PR types who can create valuable content to spread, not rehashing ad copy and 30-second spots that work well in traditional marketing.

David, Good info. It's hard to believe so many advertising and PR agencies don't understand this concept yet, let alone large companies. I think this switch is more profound than businesses realize however. They need to understand that the key to success in social media is opposite of traditional media in every way. It's "cheap," long-term and never ending, not expensive and short, as your post explains. It's about attracting consumers because they want what you're offering, not interrupting. It's about hiring former journalists and PR types who can create valuable content to spread, not rehashing ad copy and 30-second spots that work well in traditional marketing.

And maybe, it's also because there's no end game? Perhaps that's not the right term, but rather we ought to 'Begin with the end in mind' instead of simply desiring a 'social media campaign' because we've heard we need one - with no real, hard, objectives.

Just a thought.

And maybe, it's also because there's no end game? Perhaps that's not the right term, but rather we ought to 'Begin with the end in mind' instead of simply desiring a 'social media campaign' because we've heard we need one - with no real, hard, objectives. Just a thought.

Hi Dave, nice post.
One other type of effort I see are people trying to tack social media on as channels rather than baking them in from the get-go.

Hi Dave, nice post. One other type of effort I see are people trying to tack social media on as channels rather than baking them in from the get-go.

you have to consider just how many of these FB Twitter and so on accounts are dead and how many are used on a regular basis

you have to consider just how many of these FB Twitter and so on accounts are dead and how many are used on a regular basis

I do agree, I think a lot of the problematic accounts I see on Twitter or on FB include people that start up something only to abondon it within two or three months because they expected instant ROI. Twitter didn't just 'become' the next big thing, it was a really slow build up. Same with all the social media sites and their fan bases...they came because of the sense of online community, not because they were interested in ad space.

I do agree, I think a lot of the problematic accounts I see on Twitter or on FB include people that start up something only to abondon it within two or three months because they expected instant ROI. Twitter didn't just 'become' the next big thing, it was a really slow build up. Same with all the social media sites and their fan bases...they came because of the sense of online community, not because they were interested in ad space.