- Feb 10
- 23
RedBull Stratos: Record-Breaking Marketing?
- Posted by Matt Peters
- Published in Industry Commentary
So here’s how it works:
- Put dude in fancy new space suit
- Put dude in a little box
- Hook box to a super-cool weather balloon and let go
- Watch as balloon floats towards space
- Once the balloon is 23 miles above the earth, dude opens box and JUMPS OUT!
- Dude falls back towards earth and (hopefully) becomes the first person to break the sound barrier with his body
- (this is the important one) Dude survives
That is the RedBull Stratos project in a nutshell. Visit the website for more details, or even better, check out the trailer they made for it:
So why am I talking about this? Because I think this is absolutely fantastic marketing.
According to the Stratos website, this project is already three years in the making and couldn’t have been cheap. Instead of spending that money on TV commercials I would just fast-forward right through, RedBull decided to put their money behind a project that has massive coolness points (read: increased viral potential) AND genuine implications for furthering our knowledge of aeronautics, medicine, and engineering.
RedBull is thinking about marketing in a new way. They’re not trying to convince me that RedBull gives me more energy than Monster, they’re relying on a specific type of branding exercise: coolness by association.
Of course, this isn’t new. Companies have been slapping their logos on everything from people, to teams, to race cars for years in an attempt to capture coolness by association. But like all forms of traditional advertising, this dogmatic practice of putting your logo on everything has progressively less of an effect on an ad-saturated culture.
RedBull understands this. You don’t see a RedBull logo on a golfers hat. You don’t see a RedBull commercial with Eli Manning. Instead, RedBull gives you things like Flugtag, the RedBull Air Race, and now, Stratos.
The minds at RedBull display a keen (perhaps the keenest out there) understanding that in order for “coolness by association” to work, you have to realize that the bar for what is cool is much higher in our modern times.
As a marketing initiative, I think it’s working. I’ve told everyone I know about it. I sent the trailer around my whole office. And, if I site back and truly ask myself if I feel more positive about RedBull now that I know they are behind this project that is not just cool, but scientifically valuable, the honest answer is yes.
1 Comment- Feb 09
- 3
Obama Is Truly the Internet President
- Posted by Matt Peters
- Published in Online Video, Social Media
In my American History class back in high school I remember hearing that “Kennedy was the television President,” and I remember watching footage of the first televised presidential debate between Kennedy and Nixon. To a classroom filled with teenagers of the so-called MTV Generation, it was painfully clear which candidate was at ease with the new medium and which one was not. In fact, Kennedy was more than just at ease with the medium, he embraced it, he made it work for him.
I have absolutely no doubt that my children (hypothetical in this case…I don’t have kids yet) will learn that Barrack Obama was “the internet President.” Like Kennedy was with television, Obama is with the web. The internet is the defining communications medium of our time, and the skill with which President Obama has embraced it absolutely dwarfs that of any other politician I am aware of.
I have developed a fascination with our new Commander-in-Chief’s use of the digital realm. Last week, I wrote about the White House website rollover, and since then I have been closely following new White House presences online. One of my favorite finds is the White House YouTube channel, where the masses can have instance access to President Obama’s weekly video address, and a slew of other content like Vice President Biden’s new video. For anyone who’s interested, the TubeMogul blog has some cool demographic stats on the White House channel.
Evidently the Obama Administration isn’t stopping its video distribution strategy with just YouTube. Social Media Playground pointed out that the White House also has a channel on Vimeo. Now the White House just needs to get a Twitter account and they’ll be running on all Web 2.0 cylinders. (Note: the twitter account @thewhitehouse is not official.)
I suppose the real question here is what all this social media will amount to. We already know that the Obama Campaign all but revolutionized use of the internet for campaign fund raising, but it is far too early to know whether the Obama Administration can that tech savvy to revolutionize governing. It seems to me that in a democracy “of the people, by the people, and for the people” any system whereby there is a more immediate connection between the electorate and elected officials is a positive thing. Will President Obama’s White House 2.0 be that conduit of the democratic promise? In this question each and every one of us has a say. We, as citizens, must choose to use these new information channels for them to amount to anything. If President Obama is leading the charge towards a more connected democracy, success will only be reached if we follow.
No Comments- Jan 09
- 22
President Obama Makes the Internet Work For Him
- Posted by Matt Peters
- Published in Social Media Marketing
At 12:00 PM Eastern Standard Time on January 20, 2009 Barrack Obama became the 44th President of the United States of America. At exactly the same time, and with considerably less ceremony, the official White House website transformed. It is undoubtedly a sign of the times that the “peaceful transfer of power” includes a website roll over. That alone could be the topic of a dissertation.
It is a much discussed fact that President Obama used the power of the web and of new media more during his campaign than any other candidate in the history of this country. What I find particularly interesting, however, is that this masterful use of new media marketing did not stop when he placed his hand on the Lincoln Bible. Quite the contrary, it appears that they Obama political machine plans to use the internet and new media tools as much for governing as it did for campaigning.
Upon first landing on WhiteHouse.gov, I am struck first by the slick, modern, elegant feel – something I have come to expect from the Obama camp. (For an intersting comparison to the previous White House website, check out this Gizmodo post). My primary concern, however, is not the look, but the integration of new, social, and dynamic web elements.
For fun, I pulled up the page source and glanced at the code and was surprised to see six auto-discovery RSS feeds:
- Agenda Articles Feed
- Press Office Feed
- OMB News Article Feed
- Blog Feed
- Photo Gallery Feed
- Video Feed
Oddly enough, it appears that the blog feed is the only one that is currently active. Nevertheless, excuse the somewhat juvenile excitement here, but how cool is it that the leader of the free world has blog, photo, and video feeds. (Please note that I am fully aware that President Obama is neither blogging nor running this website, but it is no less exciting that the office of the President has undertaken these things.)
The official blog of the new White House is prominently featured on the front page, and I cannot help but think that this is my new ammunition against the crusty old executive who asks, “why the hell do we need a blog?”
The blog itself isn’t much yet, but if you go to the front page of the blog, you can see that the first five posts were all published at 12:01 PM. Looking at the front page right on innauguration day, I could not help but notice that the very nature of this blog reinforces a sense of rebirth…it simply starts at 12:01 PM as if there was nothing before it.
Further exploration of the Obama Administration’s new website reveals an as-yet-empty section for President Obama’s weekly video address. There are no videos yet, but I would bet $20 that the video players have full shareabilty functions like one click embedding.
I finish my tour of the new White House website by visiting the contact page where I read “President Obama is committed to creating the most open and accessible administration in American history.” I’m generally too cynical to put stock in such statements, but compared to the previous White House website, this site is already taking huge steps toward being open and accessible.
Senator Obama showed the incredible power of new media marketing during his campaign, and it appears that President Obama will continue to leverage that power as he governs this nation. I will be following the evolution of the White House website in order to see if its promise of social connection is truly realized. I’m sure it will take a few months to get everything together, but make sure to check back in for my update of the reality of this new website.
2 Comments- Jan 09
- 9
Walking the Blog Marketing Walk
- Posted by Matt Peters
- Published in Blogging, Social Media Marketing
It has been a long time since we posted on this blog. It’s no secret, we’re not trying to hide that we completely dropped the blogging ball for almost a full six months. The explanation for why we fell of the face of the blogosphere is as simple as it is inadequate: we got very busy. The last half of 2008 was a fantastic time for Pandemic Labs, the company that runs this blog, and unfortunately, when we had to start pruning tasks off of our 20 hours days, writing blog posts was one of the first things to go.
The blogorati will tell you that we have committed one of the cardinal blog marketing sins, and for the past half year we were frequently hit with pangs of new media guilt. Would our readers still be there when we got back? Would they every forgive us? Would we have to start over?
The purpose of this post, however, is not to atone for our absence, but to share some interesting things we learned about the effects (and the lack of affects) of such an interruption in a blog marketing strategy.
The Negatives
I seem to have misplaced my traffic: The most noticeable effect of our sojourn off the shores of blogland was the decrease in traffic to our site. This point is almost so basic that it need not be mentioned. New blog posts bring new traffic, therefore no new posts means no new traffic. Our site, of course, has many other sources of traffic, but the lack of traffic from fresh blog posts was certainly noticeable.
This screenshot is from our Google Analytics. The blue line is traffic from a period of time during the second half of 2008 when we weren’t blogging; the green line is traffic during an equal amount of time when we were blogging. You can clearly see the type of traffic spikes we received when new blog posts were published.
Forget me not, thou rankers of blogs: There are hundreds, if not thousands, of sites that rank blogs (Technorati, AdAge Power 150, The Big List, just to name a few.) You do not have to be blogging for long (especially if you are using your blog for marketing purposes) to develop an addiction to appearance on and upward movement in these rankings. PandemicBlog was doing well in more than a few rankings, but we have taken a hit in all of them. Examples:
- In August 2008, PandemicBlog was ranked 38th on the Junta42 Top Blogs list. Today, we are 111th. Yikes!
- In August 2008, PandemicBlog was ranked in the mid 300’s on the AdAge Power 150. Today, we are #640. Double yikes!
- In August 2008, Pandemic Blog had a Technorati Authority over 100. Today it is 44. Ouch!
The conclusion here is clear. You can’t stay ranked if you don’t post. We knew that was a danger, but we had to put immediate client business first.
Oh Pandemic Labs, you have disappointed me so: The final negative was not so much noticed as felt. As a new media marketing agency, we were keenly aware of the hypocritical message that could be interpreted by our failure to blog. As we set up blogs for clients, I couldn’t help feel a deep parental voice nagging, “Do what I say, not what I do.” On more than one occasion at various social media events around Boston, I was called out on the irony of running a social media company that couldn’t even find the time to blog. Depending on my mood, I would either docilely accept the rebuke, or respond with a point about how having so many clients that there was just too much work to do was a viable excuse for not blogging.
The Not Negatives
Notice that this section is called the “not negatives.” There are no positives to not blogging for six months…other than the added time you get in your work week.
Oldies but Goodies: As noted in point 1 above, the lack of new
blog posts during the second half of 2008 resulted in decreased site traffic. What I find most interesting is that the traffic hit was not as severe as I would have thought. The reason for this is because of the quality of the posts we already had. I am a huge proponent of the fact that “the internet never forgets.” A great post does not cease being a great post as time elapses. If you write high quality material, it will still be high quality next year, and the year after, and the year after. If you don’t believe me, pay attention to the publish dates of the posts you find in your next weeks worth of Google searches. I bet dollars to donuts that you find a bunch from 2006. PandemicBlog has a few such posts:
- Why You Shouldn’t Stumble Yourself
- The Paradox of Self-Promotion with Social Media
- Viral Marketing to Generation Why
These posts are like blue chip stocks that you buy and just hold for decades. It doesn’t matter how old these posts are, they bring in consistent, high-quality traffic every day. These posts kept our blog marketing strategy not just alive, but thriving. Throughout our five month blogging absence our blog still brought in leads and good discussion and I credit power posts like those above.
Absence makes the feed grow stronger: Ok, I admit it, that statement is not entirely accurate. But, “Absence does not necessarily make the feed lose subscribers” would have been a terrible intro line for this paragraph. The fact of the matter is that in our five months off the blog marketing wagon, we have seen no discernible drop in subscriber count. I take this as further proof of a theory I have long held and was partially influenced by the writings of DoshDosh. This theory holds that most RSS subscribers will not unsubscribe from your feed for not publishing. It may seem strange. If you subscribe to the New York Times and they stop delivering to your house, you would probably complain or cancel. But if a blogger doesn’t post for a month, I may not even notice. The absence of their feed in the mess that is my feed reader will likely pass unnoticed. I think the main reasons people unsubscribe to feeds are as follows (in this order):
- Bad Content – if you publish crap, people will stop subscribing
- Too Much Content – If you monopolize someone’s feed reader by posting 20 times per day, you might lose them.
- No Content – Every once in a while, we all do feed reader cleaning. These are the times when those “dead” feeds are likely to get weeded out.
The Conclusion
If you, like many of our clients, are undertaking a blog marketing strategy, taking large chunks of time between posts is bad. It is important to have a schedule and stick to it. It is even more important to produce quality content, not just dribble. Perhaps most important, and the reason I have written this post, is to realize that if your blog marketing strategy works, it will bring you business. That business will make your company busier. Amid the shuffle and the long days and the deadlines, please take a step back and remember that it was partly your blog that brought you to this busy-yet-awesome business state. Don’t push it into the broom closet. Here at Pandemic Labs, we are taking a bit of our medicine and charging into 2009 with our keyboards blazing. Blogging is fundamental to who we are, and we’re back.
4 Comments- Aug 08
- 11
Social Media Marketing is a Means, Not an End
- Posted by Matt Peters
- Published in Social Media Marketing
A couple of weeks ago I hired a contractor to build my new house. I was very excited because this will be my first house and I have the luxury of building from scratch. I interviewed numerous contractors, determined to find the right one for this job. After all, building my house is just about the most important thing to me right now. I want it to be perfect.
After weeks of interviews, I settled on the contractor that I trusted to build the house I want. About a week after I hired him, the contractor called me at work and asked me to meet him at the build site on my way home. So, at around 6:30, tired from a long day, I arrived at the plot of land on which my new home would soon stand.
There was stuff everywhere: Lumber, bags of concrete mix, tools of every kind, two large Caterpillar back-hoes, a cement truck, and a small battalion of workmen. The contractor met me at my car, a broad smile beaming and a firm handshake.
“Well, Mr. Peters,” he began, “We’ve got everything we need. All the lumber has just come in. We’ve got the cement and equipment for the foundation. I’ve got brand new tools all ready and my best team. I’ve even got an electrician and plumber with all their equipment set up as well. Yes, Mr. Peters, I seems to me that we’re pretty much finished here.”
Okay, so clearly this story is made up. I am not building a house, there was no contractor, and therefore the contractor never uttered that ridiculous statement.
Think about this: If you hire someone to build you a house, and they claim to be done after getting together all the tools to build that house, you would likely pitch an absolute fit. Why then is this sort of behavior tolerated in the field of new media marketing? As I say in the title of this post, social media marketing is a means to an end, not the end itself. In other words, social media is the tools, not the house.
Unfortunately, the sort of ridiculousness seen in my little story seems to be taking place in the marketing world when dealing with the new, nebulous, and daunting field of social media. I see it happening in two separate scenarios.
Scenario #1
Scenario #1 takes place in a medium to large company. One of the higher-ups in the company decides that they are too far behind the competition and they simply must get a social media strategy right away. They pass the directive down to either their internal marketing team or their marketing/advertising agency. The marketers who are tasked with developing a social media marketing strategy launch into furious brainstorming sessions. “What’s best for us?” they ask. “Do we get a YouTube channel? Do we launch a blog? Do we let people upload pictures of themselves using our product to a special website?”
In this example, our marketing team settles on a company blog as the foundation of their social media strategy. The deadline approaches and the marketing team nervously makes their presentation to the aforementioned Higher-Up.
“What do you have?” the Higher-Up asks sternly.
The marketing team turns on the large computer screen and proudly shows the brand new www.company.com/blog. “We have a blog,” they say.
The Higher-Up peruses the blog for a few moments, scrolling down and clicking on a few links. He then sighs and leans back in his chair. “Well at least now we’ve got that social media thing handled,” he says.
Scenario #2
Scenario two takes place in companies of all sizes, though I have observed it most in smaller start-ups who look to forms of online marketing as a way to financially fit within their tightly cinched belts. Someone within the company begins searching for social media marketing and they find one of the countless “social media consultants” sprinkled throughout the internet. They contact one of these “consultants,” and the “consultant” enumerates the services he offers. They often look something like this:
- Teach clients how to use social networks like Facebook and MySpace
- Teach clients how to optimize their blog (often showing how to write catchier titles and add more pictures for easy readability)
- Strategize with clients about how to add more interactivity to their website
The person at the company is now sufficiently convinced of the expertise of the “consultant” and brings him on to help navigate the murky waters of social media marketing.
Analysis
Both of these scenarios are ridiculous, but more unfortunate is that both of them actually happen. These scenarios also share a common problem. In both cases, when the client wants a marketing solution they are given tools. The client wants an end, but they are presented with the means as if those means are the end. When this happens, it more often than not leads to failure (or at least unfulfilled expectations.) This failure is then blamed on social media as a whole, and, over time, these repeated failures leave a deep-set stain on the field of social media marketing. This all then leads to established marketers viewing social media marketing as digital tomfoolery, and new media marketers as 21st century snake oil salesmen.
In the first example, a blog might indeed have been an excellent choice for the social media foundation of the company’s overall marketing strategy. But it is not the existence of the blog that is important, it is the marketing role that blog plays and the results it achieves that are important. If our hypothetical company from scenario #1 sells cardboard sunglasses, then the purpose of their blog should likely be, either directly or indirectly, to sell more cardboard sunglasses. The purpose of the blog is not simply to exist. The blog should be considered and treated as a means to and end (sales).
I have spoken with people from numerous companies who are frustrated with the failure of their company blog. “There is just no ROI,” they say. The first question I ask is, “Why do you use the blog?” They stare at me for a second and respond, “Because we knew we needed a blog.”
A blog, like any other marketing component needs to serve a purpose. Blogs happen to be flexible and their purpose can be anything from customer service to traffic generation to branding the company as a thought leader to an outright sales venue. (Note: there are certainly many more roles a blog could fill). Once the blog has a purpose, once it fills a marketing role, goals can be set for it. Those goals could be sales, or increased page rank of the company’s website, or even increased brand recognition. Once those goals are set, the blog can then be used as an effective marketing tool (means) helping to achieve your company’s goal (end).
In the second scenario we see the all-too-common problem of answering the wrong question. Our hypothetical company in that scenario wants to pursue a social media marketing strategy. The “consultant” that they hire teaches them what social networks are and how to use Facebook and MySpace. The consultant also shows them how to write snappy blog titles that tend to fare better on social news sites. What doesn’t happen, however, is the company and the “consultant” deciding what the goals are. As such, the company now knows how to use Facebook (i.e. make a profile, update it, try to find friends, etc…) but they have no idea why they are using Facebook. Or, perhaps more accurate: they know how to use Facebook, but they do not know how to use Facebook to fulfill their marketing needs. After all, the way a B2B company uses Facebook is likely very different from the way a new music-focused e-commerce site does.
I think of this problem with the following analogy. I want to learn to drive a car. I hire someone to teach me how to drive. They show up and show me how to put the key in the ignition and start the car. They then take my money and walk away. I have no more of an idea how to drive than I did before. In fact, I am now more likely to get in a wreck than I was before I knew how to start the car. In this example, I had a goal, an end: to learn to drive. I was presented with a means to that end: how to start the car. But, the means was treated like the whole enchilada. Now I’m screwed. I still cant’ drive, I have wasted money, and I was told that I should be able to drive now, so I am angry and blame the whole thing on the car.
Conclusion
I suppose I should now conclude what has turned into quite a long post. The conclusion is simple really…it’s in the title. Social media marketing is a means to an end, not an end. When approaching a social media strategy, make sure you treat it as you do your other marketing initiatives. Determine first what your needs are. Are sales all that matters? Or do you want to better engage current users of your product to increase repeat purchases in the long run? Your needs inform your marketing, and social media marketing is no different. Don’t let someone sell you the means when you really want the end. If you want a house, make sure you work with a social media marketing agency that wont just give you the lumber.
8 Comments- Aug 08
- 7
Social Marketing and Social Media Marketing, Continued…
- Posted by Matt Peters
- Published in Social Media, Social Media Marketing
Introduction
On August 5th I wrote a post about the confusion surrounding the traditional meaning of the term “social marketing” and the varying ways that it is currently being used in many circles. The idea for the post came from Mike Kujawski’s post entitled, “The Difference Between Social Marketing and Social Media Marketing,” so here again I give him a proverbial shout out. (NOTE: for any who want to read a fantastic post on the traditional meaning of social marketing, check this out.)
The reactions to my post were astounding, not because of their number, but because of their quality. I feel honored to be a part of this discussion, and even though it appears that I have angered some people, I think the discussion is something that should be taking place.
There were many great points made in the comments, and I have spent a good bit of time on the blogs/sites of those who commented. So that you all don’t have to go back and filter through the comments, I will list some of those sites here:
- Craig Lefebvre – http://socialmarketing.blogs.com/
- Bill Smith – http://www.aed.org/
- Mike Kujawski – http://www.mikekujawski.ca/
- Jim Grizzell – http://www.healthedpartners.org/ceu/sm/
- Jim Mintz – http://www.publicsectormarketing.ca/
- John Davies – http://www.johndavies.com
I have decided to write this post as a follow-up because it really is just too long to be a comment on the last post. There were many great points made in the discussion of the previous post. and also I think my initial post could use some further clarification. I would like to clarify my point here, and continue the discussion with all involved.
My point in the last post was that the term “social marketing” is starting to be used by some to refer to marketing that uses social methods like social media, events, street teams, and even 24/7 customer assistance to achieve its goals. Meant only as examples, certainly not proof, the following two sites appear in the top 11 results for “social marketing” on Google:
- Social Marketing Journal
- Social Marketing by Michelle MacPhearson
Of course Google search results are not proof of taxonomic change, I merely point to these sites as examples that “social marketing” has (rightly or wrongly) started to be used to mean something other than what it has in the past.
The problem here is that the term “social marketing” already refers to something else…and it has been around for quite some time. As Craig Lefebvre notes in his comment:
When one of the most respected academic marketers-Phillip Kotler-decided that we needed to think about applying marketing concepts to social problems in the early 1970s, he coined the term [social marketing] to describe a BIG idea. Thirty years later social marketing is being used around the world to address major health and social issues.”
Before moving on, let me be crystal clear about one thing. I understand that the term “social marketing” has been in use for nearly four decades and I also understand and support the work that has been done in the field since that time. I am in no way indicting or minimizing the field of work which “social marketing” traditionally refers to. It is well established both academically and professionally, and I myself, have worked on social marketing efforts with non-profits in Boston. For any who thought I was saying that field of “marketing for social good” does not exist, I apologize. That is certainly not what I meant.
Clarification
Now we come to the areas of confusion where I either did not adequately make my point or my point was misunderstood. Let’s look at some of the comments:
Bill Smith:
Listen social marketing is a exactly what it used to be. I’m sorry we got there 40 years before you did – actually I’m not really all that sorry – but there’s books, a peer reviewed journal, an Institute and yes a Wikipedia definition. There are also thousands of caring men and women in countries all over the world who know that social marketing means using the technology of marketing to make a positive difference in the world. They are marketing condoms to prevent HIV in Africa, helping kids wash their hands to avoid diarrhea, promoting breastfeeding, fighting against the environmental footprint of bottled water and helping families in America deal with early on-set diabetes. They don’t deserve to be treated as though they never existed because you think social marketing “isn’t what it used to be”. And they sure don’t care about your linguistic games.“
Jim Mintz:
I have taught social marketing in the USA, Canada, Japan, Australia/New Zealand and through out Europe since the mid eighties. It is an established field of marketing study. Along comes web 2.0 and thinks it can steal the name of a legitimate field. Now that is chutzpa .. Oh yes after close to 40 years we in the field of social marketing should change our name. Fat chance that will happen.”
First, I would make clear that if people begin using the term “social marketing” to refer to marketing using social methods, it would certainly not “treat [thousands of caring men and women] as though they never existed” as Bill describes. The crucial work he describes in his comment would have the exact same benefit regardless of how people referred to it. Furthermore, I did not say that “social marketing isn’t what it used to be.” I was very careful to be clear that I was talking about the term, not the field of work. I said, “I’m not so sure social marketing means what it used to.” I fear that there is confusion entering this discussion because I am talking about nomenclature and labels while others are talking about the fields those labels apply to. If one renames a folder on their computer, they do not change, diminish, or otherwise affect the files contained in that folder. I reiterate that this is a taxonomy issue.
On that note, I want to discuss Jim’s statement that, “Along comes web 2.0 and thinks it can steal the name of a legitimate field.” That makes it sound like there is a person or group of people that are making the conscious choice to hijack a term. However, language change is an organic process, often with little or no active input. Sure there are people who make the mistake — they say “social” when they really mean “social media” — but there are also people for whom “social marketing” means something different. They are not making a mistake, nor did they actively and purposefully sit down and decide to steal a name from another field.
I have had numerous discussions with other marketers and representatives of companies who use the term “social marketing” as an umbrella term to refer to marketing using social methods, not simply as a shortened stand-in for “social media marketing.” If one uses the term that way in a group of five other people and everyone understands it to mean the same thing, are they all wrong? I cannot correct them and say that they mean “social media marketing” because that is not what they mean. They are speaking of a larger marketing ideology of which “social media marketing” is only a component (albeit a large and popular one). These people use the term (rightly or wrongly) to encompass the branch of their marketing plan that focuses on consumer interaction and conversation, both online and offline. These “social methods” can be anything from blogs and other social media, to sponsored events and street teams.
Lexicons change all the time, and there is always the interesting problem of when a new change stops being wrong and starts being the right use of the new meaning. No one is ever sure where to draw the line. “Fast” is now both an adjective and adverb. But a couple hundred years ago “Fastly” was the adverb form of the word. One would “run fastly” just as they would “walk slowly.” When did the change happen? It’s hard to say. Was it when 51% of the population stared using “fast” as an adverb that it finally became right?
While not perfectly analogous to our current taxonomical discussion, I feel that the “fastly” example presents an interesting way of viewing this discussion. For the purposes of this example, I am using the idea of a “traditional meaning” and a “new meaning.” If, let’s say, 10% of the population uses the term “social marketing” in its new meaning, we could likely all say that they are making a mistake. But what if it takes off and in a year 30% of the population uses the term “social marketing” in its new meaning. Are they all still wrong? What if 80% of the population used “social marketing” in its new meaning? Are they all wrong? Do they all need to be corrected? Or has the meaning of the term changed? Obviously we can’t measure word usage with this sort of accuracy, but lexicographical shift can happen in this way.
Conclusion
Please note that I am not advocating a change in meaning. I am not taking a side, nor am I actively trying to change the meaning of the term. I am commenting on an organic shift that I am observing which may or may not pan out. As M4CHANGE put it, “Ultimately, the marketplace will decide this debate.” I couldn’t agree more. It will sort it self out organically and there is very little we can do to affect the outcome. Perhaps a new term will be coined soon that encompasses the idea of “marketing using social methods.” Perhaps not. Perhaps (for better or worse) the masses will re-adopt the term “social marketing” under their new definition and it will take off like wildfire. Perhaps not.
I would also argue that those who have taken to using the term “social marketing” as an umbrella term for “marketing using social methods” are not thumbing their noses at the field traditionally referred to by that label. There is no malice nor disrespect.
Last but not least, I reiterate that not everyone who uses the term “social marketing” means “social media marketing.” There seems to be a belief that people are talking about one or the other. But, the term has taken on a new meaning (what I keep referring to as the umbrella meaning) and I see it used in many circles.
In conclusion, I say that as a marketer and a man with an interest in linguistics, I watch the current taxonomic and folksonomic environment with great interest. To my knowledge there has has never been a time before where the maelstrom of new terms was so chaotic and moved so fast. I do not have an answer, nor can I even come close to predicting the way it will shake out. I can only watch and opine.
Again, I thank all those who commented on the last post. I invite you all to subscribe to our RSS feed so that you can catch further updates. Perhaps we will even be able to secure a guest post on this topic from one of our commentors.
3 Comments
Who’s Running Your Social Media?
If you can’t answer the question that is the title of this post, then you have a problem. Companies have had decades to form very nice little fences around their various departments of marketing, PR, and the like. Even e-commerce (as a department) has had over a decade of time in some companies to establish itself and its boundaries.
Like all social organizations, companies are full of members (departments) that take great care in marking their territory and making sure everyone knows what is their (and sometimes more importantly, not their) responsibility.
A few years ago, it was (relatively) nice and peaceful in the jungle. Then, along came this disruptive thing called social media. Social media didn’t neatly fall into anyone’s preconceived buckets, and whats more, no one had any idea whose responsibility it was to figure out if these new tools could be used for marketing.
I know firsthand that some very large companies grabbed the youngest person in their marketing department and said, “Get us on Facebook.” Think that is a tenable position in the ever-increasing field of the social web?
Now that social media marketing has settled in a little bit, a lot of the stories are coming to the surface about how social media was (and in many case still is) handled within companies. I have seen two distinct approaches:
Did you notice that the ends of both situations were EXACTLY the same?
The fact of the matter is this. Social Media Marketing is an increasingly important component of any marketing strategy, and, just like all your other marketing elements, it needs to have a vision and strategy behind it for it to work.
Someone in your company needs to be responsible, and more likely than not, you need to hire an agency to develop the strategy that’s right for you and execute on that strategy based on trackable goals.
Without that, how can you expect to succeed?
1 Comment