Apr/110
The ONE Thing You Need To Succeed In Social Media
I get the impression we've forgotten about this.
One of my first blog posts naively focused on the three thing you need in social media to succeed. Surprisingly, I think it still accounts for my most visited blog post, despite its broadness in scope. I foolishly rattled off:
- Be Human
- Educate Yourself
- Don’t Do Everything.Just Do It Right.
I say “foolishly” because I believe, even then, I was clinging to the same bullshit tenets that many other social marketers hold dear to their hearts, and use as fodder for social media strategies. After removing my marketing hat, and “being human” for a moment, I realized that there’s really only one thing you need to be successful in social media, and it has nothing to do with social media. It does, however, have everything to do with basic marketing.
It seems like we’ve become so impressed with ourselves that we overlook the most basic tenets of marketing, like the very first “P”: Product. And we’re so obsessed with “the right messaging,” that we completely fail to ask the question: Is that product any good?
Messaging matters. But the quality of the product is even more important.
Social media has the power to amplify your story, as well as those of your customers’. Your customers, however, aren’t going to be telling stories about your social marketing prowess. They’re going to be telling stories of their experience with your product. Whether they’re happy or dissatisfied. Wouldn’t you rather the former? If so, then don’t look to marketing as the answer to your problems. Look to product development and experience design.
The backbone of social is providing something worth talking about. If you want flash in the pan success, then go for that funny viral video, or interesting microsite. But that isn’t the key to long-lasting conversation and advocation.
I recently joined a new gym, Blink Fitness, which is owned by Equinox. It’s far from having the same level of amenities as Equinox, but it has enough of what I need, as well as the fit and finish of a higher-end gym. Since having joined, I’ve written a glowing Yelp review, posted to their Facebook wall, written a status update about it, told four of my friends, and brought one of them with me to try it out. All in the matter of three weeks. Despite having a Facebook page, which is pretty basic in functionality, the company has little in the way of marketing (social included).
So, what got me so excited to share my experience with everyone? The gym itself.
At the end of the day, what gets people talking, what gets them fired up and itching to share the news, is a cool product. Not the marketing. Not the number of fans or followers. The product. If you want to see success, instead of spending your money on a social media agency, spend it at a service/product design firm, and give them the keys to the kingdom. Make sure you’re providing the absolute best experience, and THEN worry about spreading the word. I guarantee you’ll achieve better results.
Note: I was recently pointed to an article by Rick Webb from The Barbarian Group that champions these thoughts and figured it would be of interest.
Jan/113
How “Social Business Design” Has Changed My Outlook on Social Media
The 4 archetypes that guide Dachis Group's social business design are Ecosystem, Hivemind, Dynamic Signal, and Metafilter.
Powered, the social media agency I worked for, was recently acquired by Dachis Group. Through this new venture of his, Razorfish co-founder, Jeffrey Dachis, is trying to validate a concept that has grown a pair of legs over the last few years: Social Business. It’s a relatively new concept to me, having spent all my time working on the consumer engagement side of social media. In a nutshell, however, it’s the process of internalizing social media ideals and applying many of those same consumer-facing archetypes to internal communications, policies, processes, and corporate culture, ultimately leading to a better company that makes better products.
My views and beliefs about social media have been called contrarian and I’ve frequently been labeled a devil’s advocate. But the truth is, I never saw myself falling into social in the first place. I didn’t touch social media, professionally, until my last internship in college, when I was doing blogger outreach for the launch of Dirt Candy. The reason for my skepticism stems from my belief that most social media programs are inherently digital campaigns cleverly dressed in Facebook fan pages and YouTube profiles. I think it’s naive to believe that the majority of the industry doesn’t lump social into digital, and for good reason. We, as marketers, fail to draw significant lines between the two.
Then again, should we be drawing lines at all?
I’ve written about the pervasiveness of social, and how the lines between media are becoming blurred. What I don’t hope for, however, is everything to be powered by Facebook Connect. If the future of social is to be determined by sites like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, then my skepticism about its future is well-founded, and it will fail to escape digital’s sphere of influence to become a ubiquitous force that knows no departmental bounds.
But I have hope; and it comes from social business design.
My antithetical attitudes towards social are born out of a desperate belief that it’s so much more powerful than what we’re currently doing with it. We talk about how disruptive a force social media is, and how it’s changing the landscape forever, but what are we really doing to drive that grandiose change? Surely it isn’t Twitter races.
I’ve always been a firm believer in the notion that people don’t develop affinities for brands just because they have a fan page, or tweet 3-5 times a day. People ultimately grow closer to brands because of the benefits they render in our lives. I used to be a hardcore Microsoft and Windows user. That is, until the iPhone came out, which led me to a MacBook, which led me to an iMac, and soon enough an iPad (com’on 2nd generation). I got caught in Apple’s famous halo effect; but I’m not ashamed.
I was introduced to many of Apple's other great products following my original iPhone purchase.
That transition didn’t happen because Apple had a YouTube contest or an elaborate fan acquisition strategy. It’s because they create wonderful products. It’s as simple as that. You’ll be hard pressed to find a direct connection between a company’s social media marketing and long-lasting effects on their bottom line. What you will find is a direct connection between the creation of better, more innovative, products and increased sales and demand.
It’s believed that social business design has the power to transform a company into an environment where free-thinking and innovation can thrive, theoretically leading to better ideas and better products. Corporate process change may not sound as sexy, but I believe that what we’re currently doing with social media, as an industry, is only skin deep. We have merely scratched the surface of what I think is possible through the democratization of these tools; at least I hope so. Because if this is it, then I might as well go back to my digital roots.
I don’t think this is it, however. I believe there’s a long road ahead for social; and thankfully it doesn’t lead to marketing more effectively on Facebook. We should aspire to more. We should challenge ourselves to find greater purpose for an idea that can potentially change the way business is conducted forever. We simply have to hold ourselves to a higher standard, and believe that we’re on the cusp of something much larger and much more powerful than what we initially set out to achieve.
Aug/104
Why You SHOULD Use the “Focus Group of One”
Oftentimes we’re told not to use the “focus group of one”, namely ourselves, when we’re brainstorming creative ideas. But to be blunt, I ask: Why not?
Social media marketing, unlike mass media, is based on the pillars of relationship building and a few-to-many model. That said, if you fall within the target audience, it shouldn’t be hard to understand that if you find something interesting, at least a good portion of the target audience will as well. I bring this up because not long ago, I contributed some thoughts to Griffin Farley’s Propagation Planning Brief (basically, the creative brief for the social age). One of the questions we listed was: “Why would someone want to pass something like this to others?”
I think in the case of social media, and propagation planning, using the “focus group of one” is vital, and recommended, in determining the viability of an activation program. It’s no secret that when you come up with an idea, it sounds great. It’s your idea; so, of course it’s great. But I think “Is this a good idea?” and “Would I pass this along to my friends?” are two very different questions, and are the necessary stress tests that an idea should go through. Good ideas are a dime a dozen. But not all good ideas are ones you would necessarily rush to tell your friends and family about; and ultimately that’s the goal.
If social marketing is about humanizing a brand and developing relationships on a micro-level, then we should be including ideas that individuals, marketers or otherwise, stress tested themselves. Ultimately, we’re all still just people. And we all equally find cool stuff to be…well, cool, regardless of what hats we wear from 9-5pm.
So, the next time you’re brainstorming, champion the idea that you think your group of friends would be interested in seeing; because odds are, you aren’t the only one who would rush to show them.
Jul/105
The Ubiquity of the Social Web, and the Questionable Sustainability of its Agencies
Let me preface this by saying I don’t write these posts simply to be contrarian. I just think that some perspective is in order.
I’ve said this before. My larger interest is in technology and how brands can connect with people through things that whirl and buzz. Taking a step beyond that is my interest in integrated advertising. So, count me as a member of the school of thought that no one medium can do the job of every other. That goes for social as well.
Too many social marketers believe that social will eventually take over the world. And for all intents and purposes, I agree. I agree that applications and experiences that are socially enabled and contextually aware is the future. The Internet of Things and the true semantic web are years away. But I do believe they’re on the horizon. Experiences that change and mold to fit who we are as individuals is the Holy Grail of advertising. Think of the scene in Minority Report where Tom Cruise’s character enters Gap. We’re already seeing it with Facebook’s Open Graph and the rise of hyperlocal information.
The use of technology and the internet has become so commonplace that anyone can do it.
Social and contextual advertising will, in my belief, reach a level of ubiquity that pervades every facet of advertising. And with that ubiquity, comes widespread learning and understanding. In an age where the internet has become inescapable, you’d be hard pressed to find someone who, at this point, has never at least Googled, or checked email. Using the internet is no longer a luxury of the technologically savvy. It’s a place anyone can access, and the cost of entry is as little as a standard cell phone.
That said, social marketing is not rocket science.
Too many self-proclaimed social experts feel the need to justify their jobs, pointing down at digital and traditional advertisers/marketers, claiming they don’t get social and that they’re doing it all wrong. But it begs the question: Why do you think social is so far outside of their scope of understanding? Social is human. And last time I checked, humans ran all the other agencies in this industry.
Advertising—good advertising—is based on understanding human behavior. It’s about either tapping into, or in some cases, creating culture. So, while I admit that most advertisers are accustomed to talking at consumers, it’s a time tested truth that they are no stranger to indoctrinating thoughts, ideas, and beliefs into the minds of the masses. They simply have to learn how to do it in new ways. And as was the case with the widespread adoption of the internet, it’s only a matter of time.
“The Last Advertising Agency on Earth” video suggests that remaining relevant requires agencies to understand that times are a-changing and we need to change with them. Most agencies know this now, and are taking the necessary steps to stay connected.
It’s grossly naive to believe digital and traditional agencies don’t get it and never will. Sure they’ll stumble. But haven’t the social agencies stumbled as well in proving sales-driven ROI? An agency is only as good as the “agents” it hires. And if the BDA’s hire people who “get” social, what makes them any less capable of kicking our collective asses? Not only do they have the client roster, but they have the funds, execution/production resources, and greater leverage for true campaign integration.
Digital agencies doubted traditional agencies the same way. But then what do you say about agencies like SapientNitro? And even then, I think the argument isn’t the same as the one social agencies make. Digital and Traditional advertising are two very different disciplines, and require vastly divergent skill sets. We, on the other hand, sit in a place that is primarily based on common sense rhetoric. As a colleague of mine says, we do a lot of talking.
Few social agencies can execute, let alone on the scale and with the refinement of a digital agency. Honestly, any programmer/designer team worth their salt can create custom tabs in Facebook. And even the strategy that leads a good social program can be developed by a digital agency that has at least one person who understands the best practices.
Understanding social, and properly executing against it, is not something reserved to the “great thinkers” of a space that is barely 10 years old. It simply necessitates that you behave more like an individual, and less like a brand hocking your wares. The foundations of good account planning and strategy were carried over from the other disciplines. But polished execution, I’m sorry to say, is something most social agencies just can’t do because they don’t have the production resources and expertise.
That said, thinking “socially” isn’t necessarily hard, it just requires you to think differently; but it doesn’t require an entirely new skill set. So, who’s more likely to emerge when the dust has settled? Social agencies who do a lot of talking about Facebook and Twitter, but lack the skills to execute against programs larger than a custom tab; or digital agencies who have the expertise to develop deeply engrossing experiences, but need to brush up on the (very elementary) do’s and don’ts of social marketing?
Here’s a hint: Social agencies; hire some digital creatives.
Apr/105
The Soul of Social Media, And Why “Agency” Shouldn’t Be A Bad Word
There’s something I’ve thought about for some time, and was perpetuated by Zach Lieberman, a speaker at the PSFK Conference last week. Lieberman, who is a creative technologist, had a talk about Engaging the Human Element, and “making deeply engaging, entertaining and meaningful interactions” through art and technology. He talked about the power of individuals, and touched on a trend of the shift from DIY to DIWO (Do It With Others); an interesting notion that speaks to to the heart of social.
Joseph (Jaffe) would say that social’s purpose for brands is to Acknowledge, Incentivize, Dialogue, and Activate (AIDA as opposed to ADIA) its customers who would then act as advocates for the brand, bringing new customers into the fold. That’s one way of looking at it, and a legitimate way to use it.
Many others in the industry see social is an opportunity for brands to go to where their customers are (online), in order to listen and engage in dialogue. And if there’s a real opportunity for it, act as a unifier, bringing like-minded people together around a common idea, belief, or hobby through a branded community.
But when I had a conversation with a peer of mine, a third angle came up; one that speaks to the point Lieberman made at the conference. Is social capable of being more than just a response/support/inducement tool? What is the purpose of launching a branded community? Are we facilitating conversations for the sake of having conversations? What is the end goal? Lieberman’s work, such as the Eyewriter and Drawn, is about leaving the screen behind. He talked about the “Open Mouth Moment”, when a person drops their jaw in amazement at something they just experienced. He described this as “the pathway to someone’s heart.” How do we create these social experiences? How do we move beyond the Facebooks, Twitters, and YouTubes of the world and get people talking again?
The advent of social media did not mark the beginning of people talking to each other, or about brands. It merely facilitates conversations, but it isn’t the reason why people talk. People talked about Lieberman’s Drawn because it was an “Open Mouth Moment”. It’s about a strong message or idea that’s worth sharing. Most self-proclaimed “social media experts” are internetologists (a point I won’t contend) who rely on incentives over emotions. Dare I say it, this is something social marketers stand to learn from the Big Dumb Agencies (BDA), as George Parker would call them. Whether it sits well with you or not, before Facebook’s founders were even born, these agencies rose to prominence on the backs of people’s emotions. And even then, people talked about and recommended brands.
An "Open Mouth Moment" at the Draw art installation by Zach Lieberman
Griffin Farley, a Strategy Director at BBH and author of Propagation Planning, recently discussed something missing from social media that has long guided traditional advertising: Brand Mantras.
“Good creative briefs can do a great job of inspiring advertising but recently I have discovered that they don’t do a great job of grounding social media actions. I think Brand Mantras do a much better job of this because they describe an emotion, a theme, a writing style that can be used as the guide for the voice of the brand in social media.”
He went on to cite a Brand Mantra in the form of a poem written for CNN. Guess who wrote it. Mother New York; Creativity Magazine’s pick for 2009 Agency of the Year.
“Agency” shouldn’t be a bad word. It’s only begun to take on negative connotations, but we shouldn’t equate the term to immorality. We should instead take hold of it, reshape it, and bring it back to a point of distinction. There are many things BDAs do well, and there are many things that they do poorly, like thinking small. But that same point can be turned around and said about smaller boutiques; most especially social shops. Logistics aside, like the inability to scale, social marketers have forgotten the pathway to people’s hearts. They’ve embroiled themselves so deeply in “Activation” strategies that they’ve forgotten human strategies.
Social media is missing its soul, if it ever had one. Strong ideas and “Open Mouth Moments” are all the reason people need to propagate an idea; not free shipping offers and discount coupons. The tools are merely there to help spread the word, but they shouldn’t be the idea itself. The Obama campaign had one strong, succinct idea that used the tools simply as a way to circulate it: “Change”. It was simple; but it’s that simplicity which made it stir the collective emotions of a nation.
Lieberman said “The process of creating art is in many ways an R & D department for humanity”. I implore this industry to remember back to what made us smile and cry as humans. To capture that raw emotion, and recreate that pathway to people’s hearts.