hello delight

 
 
Ethan Bauley put up a nice post today about why he believes "social media is underhyped".  I largely agree with Ethan's assertion that social media is often placed in a media plan simply as a substitute for advertising.  Much of the time this is unfortunate for the brand because they left value on the table they could have otherwise potentially gathered.

However, I'd like to suggest that maybe this isn't always the case.  The particular constraints of a firm and its objectives may well dictate that using Twitter as a giant microphone is, while sub-optimal, better than the next best alternative.

Assume the following simple three strategy framework for a brand to use social media.

1) Broadcast - A brand using social media in this context is using it as a podium much in the traditional sense of the advertising world.
2) Dialogue - These brands are actively engaging with their customers, fielding queries, offering support, etc.
3) Mobilize - These brands aren't really adding to the conversation but are using the affinities of their users to set up communities.

The factors that contribute to which strategy is suitable for a brand are numerous.  However, I think there are three factors you should consider when analyzing the strategies:
1) Resources - The spectrum of strategies above require differing levels of consistent resources to execute.  A company with low resources would be wise to mobilize its base, assuming the other factors support that strategy.
2) Market share - The ability of a firm to mobilize a base is dependent on it having a suitably-sized base.  Assuming a large base, CPMs using a broadcast social media strategy may well trump other media even though they don't provide the additional benefit of interaction.
3) Category - The category a product is in dictates, to some degree, the number of "raving fans" it will have.  That level of affinity implies the probability a consumer will likely engage with the brand.  One of the great strengths of digital marketing is to provide non-standard features to a category's standard offerings, thus allowing a challenger brand to compete effectively.  This is certainly one benefit of a dialogue strategy.

It isn't always necessary that a firm makes an either/or decision as to the social media strategy for the entire firm.  I've just tried to illustrate a few strategies and key factors to analyze as part of your strategic planning.
 


Comments

Mon, 07 Dec 2009 17:50:26

Thanks for this, and great points, but I do have one clarification.

When I said "social media is a substitute for advertising", I meant that from the perspective of the individual consumer.

That is (for the sake of simplification): in 1950, I mostly learned about the value I can expect from a given product by watching an ad for it or consuming other vendor-created media (packaging, etc). Sometimes I can learn more information about said product from friends, when we are connected in the right context.

In 20XX, I mostly learn about what I can expect from friends or other relatively unbiased, relatively trustworthy individuals...NOT the vendor itself.

At any rate, all your points are great and esp agree that something being better than nothing is a requisite first step.

Really good framework you outlined here.

Thanks so much for writing, feels good to talk about these things ;-)

 

Tue, 08 Dec 2009 05:01:32

You're exactly right. That's an interesting dynamic and one we (the ad industry) haven't fully come to terms with. To date, I'd say the large majority of social media execution I've seen has been undertaken to drive down the average total cost of media. For brands that don't have to pursue that strategy, it's unfortunate when they do.

 

Ethan

Tue, 08 Dec 2009 17:50:03

cool

not that price deflation/transparency is a bad thing ;-)

 



Leave a Reply