We Don’t Do Marketing With Social Media? ???

by Chris Kenton on June 18, 2008

Francois Gossieaux has a post up today that kind of confuses me. I think the point Francois is trying to make is that marketers shouldn’t view social media as just another marketing tactic, but instead should understand that the entire game of marketing is being changed by social media. While I agree with the general sentiment, I think it’s merely an outcome of something larger, a fundamental truth that is even more important for marketers to understand.

The game of marketing hasn’t changed. Neither have the rules. What’s changed is the way marketers have learned to play it. I’ve talked about this before as the exploding of the marketing Bubble.

Marketing has always been about creating relationships with customers to sell things, and customers have always compared notes with others to try and minimize the risk of buying things. Word-of-mouth was not invented by the internet, it goes back thousands of years. What changed was the evolution of technology that enabled mass communication.

For a couple of centuries, the cost of leveraging mass communication–print, radio, television–was prohibitively expensive. It was mainly businesses who could afford to use the communication tools, which they used to assymetrically flood their market with messages designed to influence customers. The concept of building meaningful relationships with customers gave way to a mercenary sales funnel that looked at customers as targetable commodities to push through a mass production cycle. Marketing focused less on relationships with customers, and more on relationships with power brokers. PR is not about relationships with customers, but about relationships with reporters. Advertising is about relationships with media brokers and their channels. Most marketing organizations today don’t even manage customer support!

But as the technology continued to evolve, mass communication became cheaper and more accessible to everyday consumers–an ironic development, given that the companies who held all the power continued to build their profits by creating new markets for the very tools that would undermine their hold on power (computers, software, high-speed connections, etc.) Once the critical mass in technology and social media adoption was reached, the bubble started to burst. Suddenly consumers can compare brand experiences and shopping preferences in ways that compete effectively with the existing paradigm of one-way controlled messages.

The point is, social media is not a fundamentally new concept. The technology that has enabled it to scale and compete with mainstream media is new, and the scaling itself is a new socio-economic power that no one really yet understands. But the idea that consumers, and employees, and partners and competitors would compare notes about your products and your business is as old as business itself. We’ve just grown up in a bubble where most companies were able to whitewash reality with carefully controlled messages, and to leverage that huge advantage to produce customers without building meaningful relationships.

So now the bubble’s burst. For those marketers who learned to play the game by building relationships with influencers rather than customers, it’s going to be a long, hard road ahead. But for those marketers who knew all along that customer relationships are paramount–and there are many of them out there–this isn’t so much a strategic challenge as a tactical one. And in that regard, I also disagree with Francois. Francois says that, unlike email, for example, Social Media is not a new channel. Well, no. Social Media is a collection of new channels. Twitter is a new channel. Facebook is a new channel. YouTube is a new channel. And these channels are an order of magnitude more potent than email ever was, because the interactions among participants massively multiply the power of the channel.

One final nit. Francois takes issue with monitoring social media. Monitoring is indeed a buzz trend that many marketers are seizing as if it were a life preserver, and it’s true: Monitoring is not an end in of itself. Knowing what people are saying is not a prescription for what to do about it, any more than just listening to the other side of an argument constitutes a resolution. But if you don’t listen, you don’t even know what the argument is about. And if you don’t monitor social media, you won’t even know what your market is talking about. To me, just like social media is a democratizing of communication, social media monitoring is a democratization of listening. The only people who should be really afraid of monitoring are the market research and polling firms, because for better or worse, I think they’re the ones who have the most (control) to lose.   

{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }

Eric Nelson June 18, 2008 at 4:36 pm

I really liked this point, I just have to add my one sort of quick nit-pick to it as well..

There has been one big change in the world of marketing due to social media, openness. With so much power now put in the hands of individual customers, we are now forced to talk to each one of them like actual people, instead of blasting one large message out to a group.

In my opinion, that is the real change in the way that we will market in the future, real conversations with real people. In order to connect in that manner we must have open and honest dialogue

Chris June 18, 2008 at 11:10 pm

Good point, Eric. A lot of people are tagging that as the “authenticity” meme, which I totally agree with, and I think is accurate. What’s really interesting to me, though, is that the “authenticity” meme in branding somewhat pre-dates the social media surge. I remember people talking about authenticity as a major component of brand image back in the late 90s, along with “consistency” over time and touchpoints. I think there was already an awareness of the consumer fatigue with whitewashed mercenary brands that was fuel for the emerging fire of social media.

francois gossieaux June 19, 2008 at 3:43 am

Hi Chris,
Thank you for continuing this conversation. We obviously disagree on whether the game of marketing has changed.

I contend that it has fundamentally changed. The end goal is the same, but every aspect of the playing field to get to that goal has changed – imho.

I agree that the motivations of people have not changed over the years – as much of our behaviors are hardwired through thousands of years of tribal living. But it is this new platform of participation that has enabled this behavior to resurface once again and change all aspects of the marketing game – except for the end goal.

I also think that companies should listen – that was not the point I was making. The point I was trying to make is that if you do not understand the fundamental shifts that are occurring in marketing, and only look at social media as another channel to listen too, you will be taken over by those that leverage the power of those changes. Because in this new game, I believe that the benefits/results are indeed game changing in an industry – not merely level-setting.

I will expand on some of those thoughts in another post today or tomorrow and put it on the http://www.marketingtwo.com blog. That way we can also continue a broader debate in the marketing 2.0 community over there.

Leanne Heller June 21, 2008 at 6:31 pm

Thanks for your post, and for providing your perspective. :-)

As a consumer, I love that word of mouth about companies & products is more accurate and more immediate. Reading customer opinions about products, or receiving a direct tweet from a company representative can form a lasting impression of a company, good or bad.

As a professional, I am lucky enough to work for a company that does care about building meaningful relationships with their customers, and I’d like to learn more about listening to and monitoring social media, and then encouraging open communication about our products on the best channels for the conversation.

Re: your comment about PR being about the relationship with the reporters – although there is more pressure for authenticity, and communication is more open and therefore easier to validate, do you think it’s possible that major players in social media are the new influencers?

Leave a Comment