The Four Faces of Social Media
I have been thinking about this for a while because I keep bumping into the same situations (well, people) over and over… This won’t be a lengthy post because I am more interested in seeing if you are having the same experiences as me. If so, I am really interested in your thoughts.
What are the four faces of social media? Well, as I have encountered them…I have settled on:
The Social Media Purist: The person who truly embraces social media as the conversation that the tools allow people to engage in from day-to-day. The tools might change, but the ultimate goal is to listen, learn, share, and converse with customers and prospects. For the purists, it’s about the conversation and the strength of the relationships that lead to strong business relationships. And the relationships affect all departments within a company because everyone employee is responsible for a great interaction.
The Marketer/PR Professionals or Ad/PR/Interactive Agencies: For the most part, a lot of these folks (for now, I hope…fingers crossed) see social media tools as just that…tools. They are tools that are used to push one-way messaging. It’s not about the conversation, it’s about the medium and more places and people to share the message when traditional marketing like advertising, PR, direct mail, events, etc. aren’t working or delivering. It’s what most are comfortable with, and I get that. While this mindset might work in the short-term…it won’t work long-term.
The Search Engine Optimization (SEO) Gang: Social media is about the tools that help generate the links. It’s about getting clients on Digg or StumbleUpon. It’s about stuffing keywords into every nook and cranny. It’s rarely about the conversation. Because SEOs are typically paid on results, they aren’t paid for helping clients engage in conversation. Or, it’s because they are making money for themselves by selling off highly ranked sites or by monetizing social sites…it’s purely business, not conversation. And yes, there are some SEO’s that get the mix of social media and SEO…I’m thinking about Lee Odden or Li Evans or Wil Reynolds.
The End User (that would be the customer): In the end, they are the people who are stuck combing through all the blog posts, tweets, and Internet links to find information that’s truly relevant to them and right at their fingertips when & where they need it. They want information or feedback that can help them to make a sound purchasing decision or the information that can help them do their job quicker, easier and better. They are the ones looking for conversation, but are the influencers that are most often forgotten by the marketing/PR/agency/SEO folks.
What’s going to happen here? And by here, I mean the world of marketing. I don’t know about you…but I don’t think social media isn’t going away any time soon. You all know me, I am obviously a purist. I enjoy conversation and I think it has many indirect and direct benefits to business and revenue.
So, should we find a way to get everyone to work together? Or will the social media purists eventually be pushed out by the marketers who continue to try to control the market and the SEO folks who are just looking to fill Google full of irrelevant links? Or, does it not even matter? What do you think?
[Image: iStock]
Tags: 54 Responses to “The Four Faces of Social Media”
Leave a Reply
[...] I have been thinking about this for a while because I keep bumping into the same situations (well, people) over and over… This won’t be a lengthy post because I am more interested in seeing if you are having the same experiences as me. If so, I am really interested in your thoughts. What are the four faces of social media ? Well, as I have encountered them…I have settled on: The Social Media Purist: The person who truly embraces social media as the conversation that the tools allow people Visit link: The Four Faces of Social Media [...]
Thanks for an interesting blog. Seems to me that if the Ad/PR folks don’t wake up and join the purists camp, they will get very little “bang” for their marketing dollars. The whole point of inbound marketing is establishing that community thing – then people will come to you for advice, services, products, etc.
John McTigue’s last blog post..Inbound Marketing Journal – Adding Value Is Everything
Thanks for the great blog! Being one of the newbies to this realm, I felt like I was a small part of all four faces, but maybe thats me trying to figure out where I fit in. I would like to be considered a purist, yet I know I have not reached that status.
You forgot a fifth group. The Practical Business Person. This group appreciates the conversation of Social Media, but doesn’t believe they have the time to engage in it the way the Purist recommends because they have businesses to run and things to do. They “don’t have time to chat all day.”
If we want to make Social Media more acceptable in the mainstream we need to respect the Practical Business Person, and help deliver ways he can use SM for maybe 10 minutes a day. That way, he can connect the way he wants to and still take care of his day-to-day business.
Beth – an interesting, and thought-provoking post as usual. I think your “four faces” make a lot of sense, but is it that clear cut? Can you be floating in the middle of a few categories? For example, by nature of what I do for a living, I would be in the marketer/PR category, yet I engage in things like Twitter/Facebook/LinkedIn and others for the conversations. Wouldn’t that make me a purist? My sense is that you could be an SEO consultant, or a PR/marketing consultant but also be in the purist camp as well.
Chuck Hemann’s last blog post..Do you know why you write a blog?
Another great post, thank you!
There are some ways to segment the Purists. One telling axis is Spokesperson vs Infrastructure Expert. Our company has one of each, but some folks do both of course.
The Spokespeople, at their best, are the personalities that drive the conversation so that communities can coalesce around them. At their worst, they’re self-proclaimed ‘gurus’ known mainly for using social media to talk about social media.
Infrastructure Experts are less known. They have the in-depth knowledge of both the technology and best practices of community building and social media (but sometimes little interest in building a huge Twitter following for themselves). I don’t see this role getting a lot of discussion, but it’s highly important and shouldn’t be dismissed as second banana or mere tactician.
Russ Somers’s last blog post..When Common Sense is a Startling Revelation
Beth, this is a good analysis and I believe that you are writing from the marketer’s point of view, which likely shaped the way that you write your article. However, there a missing face, or faceless individual, that I don’t see here. It’s the non-commercial user who uses social media to keep in touch with friends, family, and “birds of a feather” who don’t see social media as a marketplace, but as a chance to interact with people they can’t meet in person.
I think it’s important for marketers to consider the fact that they are sharing these “free” spaces with people who are just making recreational use of the facilities. It also reminds me of the fact that, especially during the past 3 months, the vast majority of people who “friend” me in Twitter, as an example, seem to be people who are hawking wares of some kind. The ones who have “systems” to build Twitter followings, automate that kind of activity, etc. are really starting to annoy me. The same is probably true for other people who aren’t trying to do business on Twitter or by harvesting information out of social media sites in general.
DISCLOSURE: to be fair, I have used social media as a means to promote myself and my blog. However, over time, I have reduced that kind of activity significantly. I will still bookmark my own links or Tweet them, etc. but I try to do so sparringly or in order to spur conversation, not sales. So, in many ways, I can understand the motivations behind the four faces that you describe in your post.
BTW, I’m not trying to portray you or your readers in a negative light. I’m just suggesting that there’s a huge group of people not covered in this post that you must coexist with.
Mark Dykeman’s last blog post..This space reserved for a post
Beth, I don’t think the purists will get pushed out. I think customers will keep it balanced. They know when they are being sold to, and they have used social media to call out those marketers, etc., who cross the line.
Susan’s last blog post..Bluebonnets
I like the idea floating around here. I think I’d be confident in saying I’d fall in a new category: Baby Face. Not quite sure where I fit into the world of social media and fairly new at it’s capabilities.
The individual side of me uses apps like Facebook to connect with family across the country, yet I don’t feel comfortable with colleagues checking out pictures of my kids at their ski lessons. And at the same time, I love twitter to learn about new innovations, to read great posts like this, and to expand my network.
Wondering if your face changes, depending on the network you use and the goals you have in each circle?
Interesting post Beth. 4 years ago when I started this journey, I was definitely of the #3 SEO camp and freely admit it. As my eyes started to open, I slowly morphed into #2 the Marketer, and started realizing just how many tools were out there, and how many ways they could be used. But then as my conversations have started to become more and more meaningful, I’ve noticed that I’m becoming much more protectful of them; and I value the people I have those conversations with even more. Which puts me smack in the middle of #1 the Purist. However, who we all need to be aware of, or conscious of, ultimately is.. the end user. Right? Or is that the purist in me?
Marc Meyer’s last blog post..Don’t hide behind the brand
Us Ad Agency/SEO jerks are truly guilty of using social media as a means to an end. It’s really sad, because it’s short-sighted. This kind of behavior generates short term results, but truly social behavior will create true followers and people who are actually interested in conversing with a brand and spreading the word. Thanks for the honesty. We can all learn a lot about this!
Josh Millrod’s last blog post..The Truth About Linkbuilding: Good vs Crappy Links
I guess this is just the early stage of Social Media, hence four distinguisable types.
I assume that we sooner or later become hybrid-types and/or split personalitities one way or another as far as Social Media is concerned
Beth,
I guess I would say that I am in the Marketer/Agency spot. In a business setting I would first consider what we are trying to achieve from a business result. Once we identify the desired outcome and target audience, we will identify the best channels to reach them. Sorry, but I don’t agree that consumers searching for info want to engage in a conversation. Many consumers, as identified in the book Groundswell, are “Spectators” or “Inactives”, and we must serve them as well by leveraging blogs, videos, podcasts, forums and reviews/ratings to meet their needs. I do consider Social Media to be a tool I use in reaching my target audience and my desired business outcome, just as I would also consider SEO/SEM, and traditional media to be tools. Thanks again Beth. Your posts always get the juices flowing.
Nice post. I agree with the four personas. I have been a “purist” since I first got on a discussion board in 1992. Then when the marketers found the site (were no SEO ppl then) we were worried, and eventually were, pushed out of the conversation by their spam. However, instead of just retreating to the corner or taking our ball and going home, we innovated, found new channels to continue our conversation without the noise. I think that is what the purist will evolve into, the innovator, to continue the vision they have.
I think it’s interesting that there isn’t a category listed for the late comers. It’s like anything else – once the soccer moms have caught on to it, the early adopters/money machine kids aren’t interested anymore. We’re seeing a lot of this with groups like Myspace and FB, I’d say, which are further along in their cycle than Twitter. I think that this group of late adopters is its own section entirely.
[...] Harte Marketing & Communications defines the 4 faces of social media [...]
I’d have to say that I think those are great generalizations – or stereotypes, but as with all stereotypes there are going to be people who straddle the lines.
I, for example, am a marketing professional, and see the use of social media to broadcast my message and raise awareness about my company, but I also truly believe in social media as a way to converse and build relationships. I think you will find that there are a lot of people that straddle the lines.. secondary colors to the primary colors you defined in the post.
Jayson Gehri’s last blog post..Cloud Computing – What does it mean to me?
Beth,
Love the photos, really. I think the future is in the chameleon-hybird, the adaptability for social media to be what you need in that moment in time as well as a long-term strategy. Depending on the tweet, RT, DM, # search, blog link, client needs, you can all of these, sometimes all at the same time.
My version of “the faces of SM” are still in big general buckets: 1) Teachers and 2) Students, of which I am the latter. But today, the student is learning to become teacher as @geoffliving implies in his reply post to my “Noise Tolerance” . I told Geoff that I’ve been following folks like you, @ChrisBrogan, @MackCollier, @JasonFalls, others for almost a year and learning something new every day. I would definately add “Students” to your list.
Would love any readers thoughts on my a student’s public disagreement with Seth Godin on the Pillars of Twitter. http://www.bridgetcavanaugh.com
Best,
@bcavanaugh
Beth: Always thought provoking. I resonate with the comment from Karin Oliver-Kreft (http://marketingmangamusic.com/) who posits the “Practical Business Person”. This is my struggle. How do I monetize my social media activity? It’s how I make a living after all? I have accomplished that goal in LinkedIn where everything does begin with a conversation. Karin: the best I have been able to do with Twitter is use it as a search engine to find people who have an interest in a common topic. I can then track them back in LinkedIn to find out more about them in depth and go from there. I am not a fan of building a 1000+ Twitter following. I have always been quality over quantity in LinkedIn and that’s how I am approaching Twitter. I am experimenting with Facebook and keep personas in FriendFeed, Plaxo, Naymz, etc. just to know what they are about. Inbound marketing, to quote Hubspot, is the future. We just have to find the tools that work for us.
Ed Callahan’s last blog post..The business case for Twitter
Great post and great comments, too. I talk to friends and coworkers a lot about the value of the conversation in social media. Personally, I learn something from my Twitter stream every day and am able to engage in conversations about emerging trends in communications and get quick feedback on thoughts or tools. I don’t think being a Social Media Purist requires as much time as some people assume. I think it just requires the commitment to the conversation when you are present in that particular space, whether it be Twitter, Facebook, or another SM tool.
@lindabeth on Twitter
Nice, simple rundown.
I worry the middle two faces — marketing/pr/advertising & SEO folk — will mess up the utility of the platform and destroy it with faux conversation and an avalanche of ulterior marketing and advertising motives. I sometimes wonder whether Twitter can scale as huge as people predict without it collapsing under the weight of too much noise and conversation. Or will the purists and end-users begin to weed out the middle two noise by unfollowing those who flood the conversation too much?
Gerard Babitts’s last blog post..What’s the Value of Content?
Beth,
Another strong post and I have been all of these faces at one time or another. I would say that even though I am a purist now, I don’t think that we can make everyone try and be purists. That just doesn’t scale. You have to love conversations and understand how to take them on and offline and not all people do.
We need to be mindful that as long as we are creating value for someone it really doesn’t matter which face we wear.
Thanks again for provoking the thought.
Beth,
Great post. I agree that social media in it’s purist form is all about the conversation. So, whether someone is telling a story through a video, ranking, blog, etc., they are story tellers. Thats what we do. Social media is not a tool (as some respondents have alluded to,) but marketing is the tool to conversation, i.e. relationships. The more we can make conversation untainted with corporate bias, the better we can gauge the tools of delivering it and measure what corporations need to do to better serve their clients/customers. It would be great to read a follow up on things you see happening to create a convergence of the “four faces,” so we can promote the cause of pure conversation. Once again, great post!
Nice post. Don’t you think we are all a bit of all of the four personalities? We do not always have the same use/perception of social media.
Guillaume’s last blog post..Social Network Marketing Basics
Hey Beth,
Great post. I don’t know if I fit in, though. I guess if I did, I’d be a purist because I’m really not a marketer as you’ve described it.
I am a digital media specialist who focuses on cross-channel experience. I tend to view social media as a game changing set of tools companies can use to extend and enhance customer experience — and expand the digital footprint. They force a shift away from more centralized and controlled experience and dialog to a decentralized conversation … and these tools have an important role in and relationship to the overall experience that creates new complexities in business management.
So I guess you can call me a purist, but only because I don’t want to be labeled with the other folks.
Thanks for the post!
Leigh Durst’s last blog post..Can’t Buy Me Love – The truth about CEM
I am going to agree with you that there are four faces, but some of us encompass more than one. As an SEO/SEM/etc. that is a purist … I think there can be multiple. I mean we are all end-users after all right?
I hope that the purists and end users push out the hard core marketers and SEOs. It won’t happen, but the end users are learning to ignore the hard sells and responding to companies who engage them and participate in their lives. I am welcoming this shift as a great turn back to story telling and putting the power back in the hands of the end user.
Kate Morris’s last blog post..PubCon South Slides
Being the Dir. of Internet Marketing at an Ad Agency/Pr Firm who does SEO and ORM for several fortune500/Forbes 400 clients..
I am the top 3…
but.. i follow more people than follow me, because i am the end user, looking for info to feed my head….
so i would be #6 – the schitzo twitterer.. all of the above.
@steveplunkett’s last blog post..Call to ’shut down’ Google Street View
I agree with Karin! I think there are a lot of small business owners and small biz execs out there who really want to engage and mean well, but can’t engage as much as they’d like to. I have found several of these folks in the Small Biz groups (like #sbbuzz) and find their insights practical, thoughtful even though their time is limited.
[...] Dar cine sunt cei care sunt pe twitter. Ei bine cica ar cam 4 categorii/tipologii: [...]
Very nice. I’m pretty sure I swing towards the purist, though I have been talking with a lot of PR folk and it interesting to see the take they have on Social Media. Their clients have heard of it, understand its not a “fad” but are a little afraid of getting into the pool.
I’ve had the unfortunate experience of butting heads w/ SEO managers. I say unfortunate because I know not all SEO experts are anti-social media. I’ve always considered Social Media and SEO the Yin-Yang of the internet. Both need to co-exists to be successful.
I’ve often wished that I could see all this social medianess from the eye of the beholder. The customer’s perspective is the most important. It always has been, but now they hold the cards.
DaveMurr’s last blog post..Pregnancy Leads to Fear of Twitter
I would add a fifth group, the Social Media Contrarians. The people that think that social media is overhyped, and that people that claim otherwise are hacks.
Of course, this group tends to undermine their own argument, but using the same ‘irrelevant’ social media tools to push their message
[...] see: Harte Marketing & Communications – The Four Faces of Social Media (Hat-Tip Kristen Turley, APR @Kristen_Okla) Close Bookmark and Share This Page Save to Browser [...]
Great post, something I’ve been mulling over for a while too. Nice to see it all wrapped up in a quick post. I’ll weigh in on a hybrid viewpoint, as an agency guy these are tools…but they are tools that allow for a conversation with the end user, which is the goal.
I look forward to all of your posts, Beth. You know I’m one of you greatest fans!.. And this is another good one. It got me thinking about the way that I post compared to your style. You have taught me something very valuable with this post. When I post, I usually post what I think is important information, whether, it’s from experts, research, or my own insights. I have not been formatting the post, as you usually do, is such a way that elicits responses, in the form of comments and conversation. This is somewhat ironic, seeing that I consider myself a “purist” when it comes to Social Media. And yet, I am not foccusing on the relationship with my readers. I’m just shoving info down their throats. No wonder they don’t comment! What is there to say? I’m about to change my posting style so that it’s more conversational and less didactic.
signed: a Social Media Purist
Hey folks, not ignoring you…apologies for the delay, but I’ve been up in the great city of NYC at Search Engine Strategies (SES). What great comments here…looks like we have a bunch of new faces to add!
The Practical Business Person
The Hybrid
The Spokesperson and The Infrastructure Expert (subsets of the Purist)
The Non-Commercial User
The Baby Face
The Late Comers
The Teachers
The Students
The Social Media Contrarians
So what does this tell us? From a marketing perspective, we can’t slice, dice and stereotype…it just doesn’t work as it once did. From a social media perspective, people use social media tools for all different reasons. Some broadcast (i.e. get their messaging out), some just like to have friends online and aren’t looking for products/services or to kvetch when they get annoyed with a brand, some think they just don’t have time for social media, and some straddle many personas. And I don’t mean that in the “fake persona” way. But people have multiple facets, one hour a consumer, one hour a friend, one hour a business person…and all of these facets play out online.
The one thing that I do want to address is the Practical Business Person because it is indeed an issue. And that issue is time. Here’s what I’d offer to the Practical Business Person…fish where the fish are. Listen, listen, listen. Find out if people are talking about you, your company or your industry online. Then go to where those conversations are. Don’t waste time on Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, Forums, blogs, wikis, etc. if your potential client/customers aren’t there. Start slow…
Ed, as to answer your question of monetization, I’d ask this (because I personally know you)… If a sales person or BD person on your team spent 10 minutes a day reaching out to customers/prospects, would you think that was acceptable? Most likely not. As a business owner, I use social media tools in three ways. 1)to learn 2) to make new friends/acquaintances (not business related) and 3) to network and do business development. I can tell you that over 50% of my business leads and additional networking opportunities are generated from my efforts. Will that be the same for everyone? Welp, it depends on what they put into it.
With social media, you get what you give.
I love how we all love to categorize everything.
Blackhat, whitehat
Social Media Purist, Social media marketer.
If you keep yourself in a box, you will remain in that box, and if the landscape expands beyond the scope of the walls you have built for yourself then you have pretty much doomed yourself.
I am all of the things you have listed.
However, I am also a realist, and I know that if I am taking money out of someone’s marketing budget they are expecting an ROI on every dollar, so most of the time for client work I am probably in the #2 or #3 slot.
I cannot steal money from people and approach social media, if paid by a company for a marketing task, as a non-marketing venture.
With that said, if a company approaches a social media provider for brand building and online rep management, that money should come from a PR budget, and not be used to build ROI, but build mindshare.
If we are looking to gain market analysis, that should be budgeted by R&D.
My point is that as a social media practitioner you should be responding in an ethical manner to what you are hired for, and not just what you believe. Do not take the social media contract from a company that wants to see a substantial increase in sales if you are a social media purist, because social media is not for marketing in that box. If you are a “jackal” and only in social to build links, then don’t take money from a company looking to manage their reputation.
However, if you can transcend all of the little cubbyholes, and know how to leverage every aspect of social media, online reputation management, and branding, you will be able to service your client in a complete manner.
I pride myself on being able to create compelling content for linkbait, as well as being able to leverage a large conversation based campaign for a client. I pride myself on being a well rounded service provider.
The social media purist is not exactly doing God’s work. They are getting paid to provide a service, the same as #2 and #3 on this list. The difference tends to be the goal based approach, versus the high level concept of what social media is in theory.
I stress theory.
Because every major social network breaks their own rules, set to control spammers, on a daily basis, for an end result of revenue or revenue generation opportunities.
Facebook was very much against people marketing on its platform, fearing becoming the next polluted Myspace, until it found out that allowing people to create business pages could generate revenue via ad buys.
Digg hates self-promoted work for monetization purposes, yet openly recommends authors with Digg accounts that submit their own work, from CPM based sites.
Social media marketers do not ruin social media, most of the time the platforms themselves ruin it.
But we do not blame the platforms, we blame the marketer. And that is fine. But if you are going to be a social media purist, and play within the guidelines of ethics, please do not sell your service as a marketing venture, because in the purest sense social media is not for marketing, and you are being hypocritical. You are shading outside of the ethical boundaries you have set for yourself, and in many senses you are misleading your client.
Many clients do not know what they need from social media. They just know it is shinny and new, and they must have it. In steps the social media practitioner who thinks outside of goals, who sells conversation as the one end only route to ROI in social media.
I know the argument , “You are jeopardizing your client if you are not being transparent.” Understood. However, if you are talented you can find ways to market in social media that deliver content/conversation/engagement that social media users love, and gets a tangible result. Horrible case studies such as “Walmarting across America” weren’t only deceiving, they were lazy, and not well constructed. In that case, yes the marketer is playing Russian roulette with their client, but in that case they were just using a horrible idea that was bound to be outed. Also they weren’t offering anything valuable to the community beyond a marketing pitch.
So much of this has to do with creativity in my opinion. I will not apologize for being good at what I do, and being creative enough to leverage social media in anyway I see fit. I will not apologize for being a realist, and understanding I am a service provider in a capitalist system, leveraging marketing on platforms that were created to generate revenue in a capitalist system.
I will continue to take my lumps from the pursists, even though I can do their jobs better than them in most cases. But I can sleep at night knowing I never took a penny for a job that a client was not educated about in its full nature (even the possible downside). I also can sleep knowing I give a lot more than I get from social media, thus making me #5, The Social Media Realist.
I think most of the people who stick around in social media are purists to a greater or lesser degree. Those who are only here to sell soon realise the approach doesn’t work – they either have to get engaged and build their network or go make another cold call.
But as time goes on those who put the effort in are likely to see their investment rewarded many times over as they will have built up a large network of contacts who trust, like and therefore want to do business with them or become friends with them or help with their charity.
Those who are looking for a silver bullet will go away disappointed and quickly.
Simon Mason’s last blog post..Sometimes I get the wrong end of the stick.
Beth, your posts are always good, but this is a great example of the comment thread transcending the original post. Lots of great reading here.
Dave Snyder’s point that a purist “is not exactly doing God’s work” made me smile. There are practioners who work for non-profits, but the majority of folks probably work for a for-profit enterprise. That doesn’t mean every tweet, post or interaction is a sales pitch. It may be that none are – as a product marketer in a company with an industry-leading community, I find the listening far more important than the talking.
But that listening lets us build the products our customers want to buy. It lets us serve them well (and lets them serve each other) so they will buy again. It lets us know what’s happening competitively so that we can position our products effectively against that competition. That interaction and listening, in short, is not an end in itself from a general management perspective.
I’m pretty sure you see the common theme – and the good social media practitioners (purists all) I’ve worked with get it. We pay for community managers and infrastructure because it’s a wickedly sharp source of competitive advantage. We tweet and interact in the blogosphere for the same reason.
Russ Somers’s last blog post..When Common Sense is a Startling Revelation
Russ -
Good points.
However, the listening and product refinement approach definitely shades to the side of Research and Development more than marketing.
I think I am noting a trend that people associate “Social Media Marketing” with “sales messages”
I don’t think I have ever tweeted a sales message for a client, or utilized a platform to make a sale. The work I do, does eventually lead to sales, but not through obtrusive behavior.
I think again we are mistaking “Social Media Marketing” for “Social Media Stupidity”
I myself do pro-bono work for a non-profit, ( http://thebbf.org ) , but even in that case the charity is looking for money, goods, and services to help those that need it the most.
I do not, and never will advocate “spam.” Even though some of what I do, mostly linkbait, would be called spam by some. I do however advocate goal oriented social media endeavors.
In the current economic climate, if you think you can walk into a fortune 500 company and say “We will not be gauging this campaign on ROI, but rather on conversation.” I think it might be a tough sale. And if you aren’t selling it that way, but proceeding that way, well that is an ethical issue within itself.
My real issue is the “our route is the only correct route” mindset.
Let me ask a series of questions:
If you are a purist will you only work for a company that already has conversation going on about it in the social space?
If not, do you create conversation between the company and social media participants?
In that case aren’t you creating content, shaped for social media, to be used to meet a marketing goal?
How does that differ from creating an amazing video with the express reason of building links to a site? Doesn’t that video, if genuine, without a marketing message, give as much to community as the conversation the above situation outlined?
I see them more like “facets” than “faces”. I think of personalities like diamonds and everyone I know well, has multiple facets to their personality. I think a social campaign should have mutliple facets as well.
[...] up a version of this (combining agency/marketing and adding social purist as the fourth view) here. [...]
Dave, thanks for stopping by and giving your thoughts here. It was great to meet you at SES NYC.
I’d like to add my thoughts to a couple of points that you made.
“My point is that as a social media practitioner you should be responding in an ethical manner to what you are hired for, and not just what you believe. Do not take the social media contract from a company that wants to see a substantial increase in sales if you are a social media purist, because social media is not for marketing in that box.”
** I think most social media practitioners (the ones who truly get that SM is about listening and the conversations that lead to customer satisfaction, translucent/transparent/authentic/etc. relationships) would probably not take on a project where they are implementing social media tools for one-way broadcasting or messaging pushing…no matter how big the monthly check. Why? Because they don’t want their name associated with it when it crashes and burns or ends up as the next WalMart scandal.
Social media isn’t a religion that we believe in… It’s where marketing/PR/Customer Service is heading and it’s turning business on its head.
As well, it’s doubtful that a company will see a substantial increase in sales just by implementing social media tools alone. If there product/service stinks, customers are unhappy, there isn’t a market for it, etc…social media isn’t going to cure that. Now, if the company actually wants to listen to their customers to find out what’s wrong and fix it…then social media most likely will work. But then again, so could customer advisory or focus groups. At the end of the day, it’s about the conversation and all the benefits that come out of that conversation. Implementing social media just for short-term sales goals will give you just that…short-term sales goals. Implemented for the long-term (and by that I mean changing the way business is done forever), companies can work towards developing a base of customers that are more loyal and satisfied.
“The social media purist is not exactly doing God’s work. They are getting paid to provide a service, the same as #2 and #3 on this list. The difference tends to be the goal based approach, versus the high level concept of what social media is in theory.”
**You’re right, social media isn’t doing god’s work…and I for one don’t know anybody in social media who feel like little gods [well, okay, there might be a few.
]. Social Media and those who consult companies on how to implement it are on the side of the customer. It’s about being the customer advocate and helping companies to listen to customer voices. I disagree that social media is theory. There are too many examples of it working… Dell, Comcast, Graco, Rubbermaid, Zappos and for the little people…Harte Marketing & Communications. 
“Social media marketers do not ruin social media, most of the time the platforms themselves ruin it.”
I think there are lots of people running around calling themselves “social media marketers” that are indeed ruining social media. I’ve met them. They say that “social media marketing” is a good buzz word to get people in the door even thought they haven’t done a day of marketing in their lives. And this is the exact reason I dislike the term “social media marketing.” Just because people understand social media tools doesn’t mean they understand marketing and how to implement social media as part of a marketing strategy. By confusing the two, there’s a high probability that they will do damage to their clients (wasting money, customer backlash, Twitter/Facebook/etc. accounts that just sit there unused, etc.)
“But if you are going to be a social media purist, and play within the guidelines of ethics, please do not sell your service as a marketing venture, because in the purest sense social media is not for marketing, and you are being hypocritical.”
That is so not true. I am a marketer who gets social media. I don’t think there’s anything hypocritical about being a hybrid. Social media is a communications channel and it leads to indirect benefits that enhance marketing, PR and SEO AND the company & it’s customers at the end of the day.
For example, by utilizing social media a company can find out what their customers want to see in a next generation of a product (or a new product). That’s marketing (as in research or product management). Then when the product is released (via product marketing/marketing communications), they keep listening and conversing with the community to get feedback. Then customer service folks can use social media to continue working with customers that might have questions, etc. Then HR can use social media to recruit/hire employees to service or install (whatever) the product. It’s a complete business cycle…and it never ends.
“I will continue to take my lumps from the pursists, even though I can do their jobs better than them in most cases.”
**Not sure what you mean here. There are a lot of “purists” who are accomplished & effective marketing/PR/and communications professionals…they are the powerhouses that understand that marketing/PR/communications is changing from messaging pushing to conversation. But that fact of the matter is…traditional marketing isn’t going away and social media might not be applicable for some companies/industries and a good marketer can easily figure that out. It’s the folks that don’t understand marketing that push social media and “social media marketing” and jump all over the chance to implement a social media strategy for a client just for the cash. This is where I see a lot of marketing, design, interactive agencies and SEO folks falling. (And I am sticking to them because this is a marketing blog.)
I think the first question asked should be: “Why do you think you need a social media strategy?” If the answer is “because we want a Facebook page” or “because our competitors do.” That’s not good enough. The answer should be something like “well, our customers are talking about our company, products/services and industry online and we want to learn how to implement social media so we can join the conversation.”
“I think I am noting a trend that people associate “Social Media Marketing” with “sales messages””
**I’d agree. That’s another reason why I dislike the term. Social media is indirect marketing. Just like basic business etiquette. People need to get to know someone before they discuss what they do for a living and they need to earn the right to have a discussion around talking to someone about buying their services. It’s rude to get in front of someone, introduce yourself and then immediately push a marketing message down their throat. That just turns people off…both on and offline.
Dave, hope I understood all your points. Thank for the great insights and allowing me to add mine to yours. We need to keep having these conversations to keep people moving in the right direction…and by “right” I mean conversations.
Thnaks Beth -
Maybe one day I will understand real social media
I noticed you didn’t answer the question I posed above, very interested to hear your answer.
Also, you note Dell as a legit social campaign, but their main twitter campaign is very much a push campaig involving promo codes for the express purpose of revenue generation.
Also we are still confusing ethics with idiocy. I do linkbait, but I am not dumb. I am very guarded with my clients brands. To say that all “social marketers” will hurt a company’s brand is a pretty blanketed statement.
I was wondering if the social media purist is allowed to take a check for their work? If so why should they be able to tell people not to focus on getting checks as the reason to do social media? Is the purist only doing pro bono work?
I think we are still mashing PR with Marketing with Research and Development, in the corporate culture each is a differnt beast.
Note: last comment was from BB thus multiple typos
That is all
Dave, sorry, missed the questions! Here’s my thought (if anyone else wants to chime in from your experience/perspective/etc. please feel free).
“ If you are a purist will you only work for a company that already has conversation going on about it in the social space?”
The bottom line is that not all companies/industries will have people talking about them online. Why waste the budget to engage or force engagement (i.e. creating Twitter accounts, videos, Facebook events, whatever…) when there isn’t anyone to engage with? But, that’s just me…I am a pragmatic marketer. To me it’s the same as creating a product or service without knowing if there’s a market for it and then asking afterwards “why isn’t anyone buying this?” Shiny object syndrome exists for a reason…
As for Dell, who cares if their main Twitter account is promotional? If their community doesn’t care, why should anyone else? The bottom line is that Dell’s community will tell them (they are a very vocal bunch!) what they like or don’t like…and I am sure Dell will adjust accordingly as they have done in the past. Dell’s social media strategy doesn’t begin or end with a Twitter account. They have a bunch of Twitter accounts, blogs, etc. They have conversations with their community (whether it’s on or offline). And so far, their efforts have turned around their customer satisfaction rating in a major way.
“I am very guarded with my clients brands. To say that all “social marketers” will hurt a company’s brand is a pretty blanketed statement.”
I didn’t say all social marketers will hurt brands, I don’t believe that at all. My point here (and my question of you at SES NY) is that It doesn’t matter if *you* protect the brand that is paying your bills. It matters more, from a social media perspective, if you are the customer advocate for the brand that is paying your bills. Meaning, as social media consultants we should all do what we can to be the connector between the community (if one exists) and the brand. We’ve seen crowds turn into mobs in a snap (Motrin Moms come to mind and that was a traditional marketing campaign) and we need to consult brands on how to avoid that and if it unfortunately happens, how to address the crisis. (And burying negative links doesn’t count.) I have run into people in Philly who have told me that they call themselves “social media marketers” without having done a day of marketing in their lives because it’s a great buzzword to bring in clients. Those folks will indeed cause damage to a brand because they don’t understand how to integrate social media into an overall marketing plan…or for that matter any corporate plan that includes social media.
Dave, I really think our disconnect is our different backgrounds. I am a marketer and as such I look at all marketing [product (development/marketing), pricing (research), promotion (communications & sales) and distribution (BD, channel development, logistics)] from a basic notion and it’s this: Is there a market for the product/service. It’s the same with social media (which, to me, is a channel for communication). Are people talking about a company, brand, or industry online? If so, should the company participate? You can’t create conversation if no one is there to talk back. You can’t create a viral buzz if you don’t have evangelists.
And I am not sure why you keep equating social media to not making money (or doing pro bono work). No one ever said there wasn’t a business model for earning revenue as a social media company or consultant.
My only point to kicking off this conversation is that a lot of people (and since this is a marketing blog, I am pointing the finger at marketing, PR, communications professionals, SEOs, agencies, etc.) look at social media as ONLY tools for one-way push of messaging or as a way to create more inbound links. My personal opinion is that if they continue down that path, social media will fail because eventually those one-way message pushes and links will be ignored just like traditional marketing is today. Why? Because social media is about conversations and those conversations lead to indirect goodness that comes in the shape of strong relationships (i.e. potential customer loyalty/satisfaction), better products/services that customers help to create and more natural inbound links.
As for “mashing,” PR, research, development (or even sales), they are all functions of marketing…no mashing necessary, it already is. If a corporation decides to silo those functions (and I know a lot do), they are asking for internal conflicts. But, that’s a post for another day…
I don’t want to hog up the comments here, besides people who know me, know where I am coming from…I don’t want to keep rehashing my opinions only to bore people to tears.
If you want to take this off line and chat via email or phone, I’d really like that because we really didn’t get a chance to talk in detail at SES NY.
Dave, thanks again for all the great insights, questions, thoughts and discussion…I really appreciate you taking the time to do so and it’s necessary to keep us all moving forward together.
Note: I did delete your duplicate comment in case you were wondering.
And I don’t take points off for typos. (Kidding.) I am just amazed that you were able to type all that on a BlackBerry…
“I really think our disconnect is our different backgrounds. I am a marketer…”
I hope that isn’t true since I speak internationally on Internet marketing, and write for several Internet Marketing blogs.
“As for Dell, who cares if their main Twitter account is promotional?”
So push marketing isn’t bad, its just bad if the community says its bad? Playing the result is tough.
“You can’t create a viral buzz if you don’t have evangelists”
I can show you probably 1000 case studies that disprove this, but will rest with this …. http://www.youtube.com/user/Blendtec .. they have brand advocates now, but that is a product of the viral campaign, not the reason it worked.
Dave, stating that our backgrounds were different wasn’t meant to be a slight. It’s a good thing…not a negative. Otherwise, if we all came at this from the same angle, it would be pretty boring and there would be nothing to discuss.
What I meant by “I am a marketer” was not that you aren’t. I was just trying to clarify the disconnect by our backgrounds and how we might see things differently. I have done all types of marketing…research, product marketing, product development, pricing, logistics, international marketing, business development, etc. Not just communications (meaning PR, direct mail, Internet, etc.) and that totally affects how I see social media. If you have done all these things too, then yes, we have the same backgrounds and I was wrong.
Based on educations, experiences, etc. people tend to see things from different perspectives. Some agreed totally and some do not and some are middle of the road. That was the point to this post (and the conversation that came out of it), there are different people using social media in different ways. And whether or not I agree with how they use social media, well, that’s my opinion as this is my blog…
I still stand by what I said. If Dell’s community doesn’t care, then it doesn’t matter if they use it for one-way push or to offer promotional discounts. The community makes the rules. Same goes for Guy Kawasaki. If his community doesn’t care that he uses social media tools for traditional marketing then it doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks. I am a part of Guy’s community and I don’t care. He’s always been upfront about his uses of social media tools and I respect that.
The Blendtec example is not the norm. How many companies get excited about “wow! doing a cool YouTube video” being convinced by their interactive agency that it will go viral and then it just sits there. Widely popular, viral videos that turn into case studies are not the norm for businesses.
The bottomline is this…you can’t create a market. It either exists or it doesn’t.
Beth -
Guy Kawasaki’s use of the automates “@ reply” on Twitter is something I have seen him talk about at three conferences in two months.
If you @ someone on twitter it does not matter if they have opted in to your stream, they are going to get the message. This recipient may not part of his community, but now they have been forced to except his message.
Also he is doing this on his Alltop account, not his own. Do the motives of the marketer transfer to the company they are marketing for?
What would happen if everyone utilized Twitter the way Kawasaki told them too? It would become unusable.
We cannot explain away things that counter our personal belief systems as a series of anomalies. Blendtec might be abnormal for sure, but it is not the only case of a viral campaign that began from an unknown brand. Viral marketing is 100% possible without conversational marketing being a component. Proof = Blendtec
@DaveSnyder, that’s inside-out thinking my friend, not outside-in. Social media is about outside-in.
WOW. Passionate discussion. “Social media” is exactly that – a medium. People can use it anyway they want to because it’s easily accessible. Similar to another medium, print, you can be a journalist, an advertiser, a commentator (letters to the editor) or simply a subscriber.
It feels like the behavior (how people want to use it) is being confused with the application (ways you can use it). Calling oneself a “social media marketer” is like calling oneself, a newspaper marketer. As marketers, PR professionals, journalists or whatever, we need to figure out how to execute our”core purpose” by leveraging the appropriate medium in the digital channel. I think Kotler would agree with that.