Dear Marketing & PR Pros: You’re Still Pushing
There have been many conversations around where social media should “live” (marketing or PR or somewhere else) and which silo (marketing or public relations) is gaining a better foothold in managing (internally) or growing (agencies and consultants) social media business.
But in observing daily how both marketing and PR professionals are engaging in social media, I still see a lot of pushing versus engagement and understanding (or maybe even empathy). Even from those who say they “get” social media.
Sure, marketing and PR pros get is social media tools. What many don’t get is people relations. And it is very apparent in their approach to social media by the way they hold onto marketing and PR theories and terminology and victories from the past (i.e. awards for traditional campaigns) like a comfortable pair of old jeans or a badge of honor. The problem is the world has changed; the marketplace has changed; and customers have changed.
And yet with all of this change, marketing and PR practitioners still approach customers socially as if we are going into battle with them (thanks to Brains on Fire for making that clear in their new book). Think about these words for a moment:
- Campaign
- Tactics
- Targeting
- Strategy
- Objectives
- Market share
- Outcomes
- Messaging
- Driving leads
- Push
- Pull
- Brand
They are all rooted in conflict between company and customer.
Who wants to be a pawn in a campaign? Who wants to be a target? Who wants to have a message pushed at them? Who wants to be at the end of some market share game?
I’d guess no one. But, heck, I could be wrong.
Maybe your customers are sitting idly waiting for you to message them via Facebook to share a messaging campaign and to then share that message with their friends (with the sentiment you find acceptable, of course). Or maybe they are sitting there watching YouTube waiting for some hot guy to tell them they need to buy deodorant brand they’ve never purchased before for the stinky guy in their life.
Nah, I doubt it.
Even More Goodness! Related Posts:
Tags: 25 Responses to “Dear Marketing & PR Pros: You’re Still Pushing”
The Harte of Marketing by Beth Harte is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at www.theharteofmarketing.com. [If you have a question about what you can use from this blog, click on the above Creative Commons link to learn more.]
This is right on the money Beth. We seem to have moved to the point where a lot of our talk is about engaged customers but then when you look at practice it is locked in the push mentality. We really don’t give our customers much credit… based on the way we treat them. The world has changed and we need to change quickly to keep up.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Beth Harte, bViral, Restaurant Marketing, BobbyRettew, The C Word and others. The C Word said: RT @BethHarte My thoughts this morning… Dear Marketing & PR Pros: You’re Still Pushing http://bit.ly/ciRhTs [...]
All excellent points, as usual, Beth. In some cases, it may be professionals who don’t practice what they preach or totally throw themselves into making this full switch. More often, I think it’s a factor of the corporate world, especially in the B2B space, where you’re dealing with a slow-moving machine. Ultimately, we have to educate – and at the same time satisfy – those that hold the purse strings (not to mention the rest of the organization) to get them behind this long-term shift in how we market. As a result, we end up doing a careful dance to test the waters while still using more traditional approaches/language that everyone (namely the management team) is comfortable with. Companies just aren’t moving as fast as social media/marketing is changing and will have to more fully embrace the “new way” at some point. In the meantime, I think most continue to take baby steps to get a little closer.
Beth,
I’m incredibly disappointed to see any professional devaluing targeting. To assume targeting an audience is equal to “pushing” is ignorant at best. It has nothing to do with pushing a message on its own, even if pushy sales tactics use it as well. It has to do with knowing who your audience is. And as I said to the colleague who pointed me to this post privately, if you don’t know who you’re talking to, you need to keep your mouth shut. Targeting gives you that. It makes sure you’re aware of who cares about your company and why they do so that both sides can have a more intelligent and productive conversation that (hopefully) benefits both in some way.
.-= Jennifer Mattern´s last blog ..10 of the Best Recent Social Media Tutorials on the Web =-.
Beth, I think these are great points for all pros to consider. Heck, not just consider, but chew over, digest, and then come back to.
While I, like you, would like to change much of the terminology that’s used in our business, from a practical point of view, that probably won’t happen any time soon. I also don’t think these words are necessarily rooted in conflict, but it’s our use of the terms that spurs the conflict.
Take me. I’m a “target” for companies providing media software (because of my work), entrepreneurs (because of the several blogs on which I publish), as well as service-oriented companies like Groupon.
The difference between my reaction to a lot of them is that I’m happy to be a Groupon “target,” as it were, because they provide me with things that are useful, that I can use, that I can save money on. I’m not that happy being a target when the targeter shows no propensity for understanding who I am, what I want, and how their product/service will be useful to me.
The traditional approach to public relations has always incorporated a “listening” factor, i.e. research, surveys, etc. The problem is that in the “new” world of PR, organizations forget who they’re trying to reach through the plethora of shiny new tools, so don’t realize they still have to do this, albeit using new techniques (and in many cases, the traditional ones as well). It always has been, and always will be, people.
.-= Shonali Burke´s last blog ..How Pepco Can Power Up Its Communications =-.
I have to agree with Jennifer’s points re: the importance and value targeting still play in marketing and PR initiatives, even within the social media space. But, I think Beth’s broader point is that you can still target, but the issue is that many PR and marketing professionals are going about this targeting all wrong in their social media engagement. They understand they still need to know who their audience is and why that audience may want to engage with them, but they’re speaking to them as they that audience isn’t smart enough to understand this.
And I think that’s a big mistake, one that I, too, have been seeing with increasing frequency. I think you can still target when engaging in the social space, but you also need to realize that approaching those targeted audiences in a manner akin to how you would within traditional communications and content is a misguided attempt to try to push traditional forms of communication into the digital space when research and anecdotal evidence suggests that is not well perceived by consumers.
To me, doing so is similar to how publishers thought (and some still think) it was OK to just repurpose their print content online. It just doesn’t work, and people are put off by that.
.-= Keith Trivitt´s last blog ..KeithTrivitt- RT @robpegoraro- Another bwevents point I made- Instead of sending a generic any interest follow-up- update me about client-product =-.
Beth, first I *Harte* you woman !!! LOL
Yes lame but true.
Ok diving in … I agree with you but also agree with Shonali and Jennifer. Marketing practices, theories, concepts, vocabulary and overall activities have been around for **decades** … social media/new media practices, theories, concepts, vocabulary and overall activities have been around only for roughly about 1 decade at best ??? but truly in the marketing hot seat for about the last 2-5 years. So I think that while you raise some extremely valid and interesting points, I don’t see this changing any time soon. Time and again, clients we work with “get” (or so they say) social media but always refer to their activities in the social realm using traditional marketing terminology as you so cited.
I think that what you share here is an “ideal” vision of how it should be ??? yet the reality is that clients and businesses incorporate traditional marketing language and concepts into their social outreach efforts. And one of the things I am always bumping into is that social media is NOT new media, it’s marketing (or so say many “experts” in the arena). Social media is always brought back or tied to marketing. Before you deploy Facebook or Twitter or other shiny tool, what are you already doing (or NOT doing) marketing-wise? That is the crux of the matter I believe. We can argue if it belongs to PR or marketing all day long but for the purposes here, either way, social media seems to be roped back into the century-long, deep-seeded traditions of marketing/PR, etc.
It will be interesting how social media “pushing” evolves with time but I think it will be a long, loooong time before companies, organizations and such who are, at the end of the day, seeking to expand/maximize profits in all facets of their operations (including marketing/PR), relinquish their pushing despite the “best practices” of engagement for engagement sakes (or positioning or awareness) vs. dollar-hungry campaigns, tactics and strategies.
I will swing back to address comments (some very interesting points being made!) but I will give you something to chew on in the mean time…
Some of you are focused on ‘targeting.’ My question right now is why aren’t you defending the other words? Why is targeting a hot button versus, say, strategy?
By the way, I didn’t say targeting was a bad thing! Those of you who know me know that I think 100% that we MUST know our customers. REALLY KNOW THEM, that’s the point of being customer-centric.
Okay – I’ll take on some of the other terminology you mention. Many of these words are actually neutral – and it is the meaning that is put on them that perhaps implies a sense of conflict (not least because they are used in a military sense very often).
But you can most certainly have a dialogic campaign, based on tactics, that identifies targets, with a clear strategy (or even a strategic purpose) to achieve specific objectives, by communicating particular messages which may even drive leads for a brand, using both push and pull channels. None of these things has to be seen from a perspective of causing conflict (particularly if your objective is to build relationships relevant people so they will gain understanding or change their opinion or behaviour with respect to your issue/product/service etc).
Indeed, one could argue that many of the approaches you criticise lack evidence of these particular aspects of management (since most of the terms are not exclusive to either PR or marketing). And, let’s not pretend that organisations don’t have a persuasive purpose in most of their communications – regardless of whether it is push/pull or a conversation (which actually will involve a bit of pushing and pulling quite probably). Likewise, those we are communicating with will be doing a bit of pushing/pulling/persuasion back at us.
Personally, I dislike the term “audience” – which doesn’t imply conflict, but does reflect an idea of others being passive and waiting to be communicated with in a broadcast (one-way) sense.
Let’s also consider “engage” which is common terminology for social media advocates. That certainly can be seen as a hostile military term.
Language can be a barrier to behaviour, but here I think perhaps you have been a little selective to make the point. Hey, that’s communication!
This is an interesting discussion. In some cases, I don’t mind being a target in a campaign where a message pushed at me with no prior contact or relationship…as long as it’s timely and relevant. For example, if I’m looking for a new office chair (I actually am) and have been talking about it on Twitter, searching for it, etc, then I’m open to having whoever wants to push a deal at me or target me do that. I don’t need to have a “relationship” with every company I buy from.
That said, many people now expect to be listened to, answered, consulted with, etc. by companies who they purchase from. Maybe not everyone wants this, but if an organization is really concerned at keeping its customers happy, it should do whatever it can do please them. Maybe some of the words you listed conflict with this notion. But I’m not sure they always do.
Maybe the thing to remember is that social media tools go beyond just marketing or PR. Companies that are doing things right and engaging with their customers are good at using social media tools to listen to, delight, surprise, entertain and inform their customers..is this the “new” marketing and PR or is this something different? I guess it depends on your view of this stuff…
.-= Jason Peck´s last blog ..Panthers Purrsuit- Social Media- Sponsorship and Fun =-.
Heather, I think you have an interesting point re: “audience.” For me, it’s about distinguishing a group of people as something other than a “market” — two concepts my most recent client base used to regularly confuse.Coming originally from a music PR background, that likely also influences my own use of that term. I’m just curious if you have other specific suggestions, especially when “publics” has been criticized for years and most other options I come across imply sales which isn’t always the case. The only other option that comes to mind is “stakeholders” — one I find far too stuffy for groups I work with these days. Would love to hear your thoughts on that.
.-= Jennifer Mattern´s last blog ..10 of the Best Recent Social Media Tutorials on the Web =-.
Great post, Beth. I couldn’t agree more and was actually thinking about a blog I’m going to write on this very subject soon. The tools have changed, the tactics are the same. And that means a HUGE disconnect for sure.
Right on the money.
.-= Marjorie Clayman @RLMadMan´s last blog ..c’mon Vogue! =-.
Great discussion. I agree with Jason that I don’t mind being targeted by a campaign so long as the word “target” has some real meaning. If something is being pushed at me online that I have also expressed interest in online, then I’m going to feel appreciative and not like something was pushed on me.
Like Jennifer, I was originally in music marketing. I never liked the use of the word “market”. I felt it was about “who would like this artist” and then “let’s find them and communicate with them”.
As for the pushing rather than engaging and the combative terminology, do you think that marketing/PR people from MBA programs are more guilty of that than others? Just a thought…
First, just let me say… This post was not about the list of words. It’s about something larger than a list.
Paul, you hit the nail on the head. Customers aren’t stupid…they know when they are being targeted with promotional messaging. I think it can border on being insulting to push a message at them after you’ve ‘engaged’ with them socially in conversation. But, to Shonali’s point (up above), it really depends on if the customer is okay with that. Some are, some aren’t. My point is that we should know and not assume.
Kellie, excellent points and you have added clarity to the point I was trying to make. “professionals who don’t totally throw themselves into making this full switch.” Exactly. It’s one thing to be consulting on social media tool, but it’s completely another to understand social media because it’s a part of your life. I bump into a lot of agencies, consultants and professionals who say they “do” social media, but yet they don’t have anything more than a LinkedIn account for themselves. There’s a BIG gap between the two and that’s what I am referring to in this post. I am glad that you brought B2B into the discussion. The challenges you mention are very valid and real! (Having been in those shoes and trying to implement social media on two occasions in 2006 and 2007. It’s not always easy.)
Jennifer, you know what I’ve learned in life? It’s always the guilty or inexperienced that come at you with guns blazing and name calling. If this blog was about having marketing 101 discussions, your point would be valid. But, it’s not and never has been. If you’d like, I can suggest some great IMC or customer-centric management books if you’d like to catch up with the conversation. Just let me know.
Shonali, agreed, changing the terminology isn’t going to happen, but changing attitudes and perceptions on how we relate to customers (i.e. people) can happen and that’s what I strive for. There is nothing more frustrating than using social media to engage and build relationships with people to only then have some marketing/PR genius come around and say “Hey, let’s beat them over the head with XYZ campaign to fill the lead pipeline or get our messaging out!” Whoa! Slow down…you are beyond that. These “people” are often already fans or advocates of your product/service. You are wasting time, resources and money because they aren’t going to be pushed to buy more or be convinced of something they already buy into (such as brand promise). It’s the difference between pulling people to us and pushing them away. It’s the difference between allowing them to be a focus within the company and treating them like a targeted demographic. To your point about being a “target,” sure we are all targets for organizations out there. But the brands who know us well, don’t need to target us and they know it. We come to them and they keep us close by engaging us (and knowing how to be timely), educating us, helping us, servicing us, providing products/services I want/need, etc.
Keith, thank you. You’re exactly right. I didn’t say targeting was wrong, generally (marketing/PR 101). What you have said so eloquently here is my point. Specifically “…they’re speaking to them as they that audience isn’t smart enough to understand this.” I am just going to point everyone to your comment.
Mayra, backatcha!
I agree…all the theory has been around for a REALLY long time. But when you think of being social and say, even word of mouth, those things have been around longer than traditional marketing theory. And you’re right…we aren’t in reality and just like Kellie said, there are many internal challenges (i.e. revenue generation!!). That’s why I brought up the topic… because our customers ARE in reality and are way ahead of us as marketing and PR professionals. Also, I’ll argue that IMC (being data-driven, customer-centric) has been around for almost 20 years…no one paid attention (again, a lot of challenges!). Social media and customers being more savvy, having a voice, etc. is driving it again. Organizations can be customer-centric AND make money. Look at Zappos, they are customer-centric and still “target” people with traditional media. It’s okay to blend the two! (I never said it wasn’t…sigh.)
Heather, it’s great to have you pop by, it’s been a while since we’ve discussed PR. Let me just state one more time… the post isn’t about the list of terminology (that would be a long discussion that would never be resolved until everyone agrees on standard terms that we can then rip apart). That said, I agree with all you are saying. Audience is a tough one, it’s ingrained in our terminology. We all aren’t at the theatre waiting to be entertained. Oh, wait… The Old Spice guy was kind of entertaining. Hmmm, maybe we are in a theatre of sorts.
Jason, timely and relevant is what IMC is about, I don’t disagree there. You’ve helped make my point… If someone is welcoming dialogue via social media, you talk back or share information that helps them make a product decision. What you don’t do is push a campaign at them that isn’t relevant (different product/service) because it’s where *you* are trying to fill your pipeline or it’s the messaging du jour *you* are required to get out. Or worse, promoting products/services non-relevant to where they are in the buy cycle. (For example, I received a pitch about an upcoming event that they thought “it would be great for me to blog about!” Guess what? I spoke at that event, know it well and am a fan. They missed their opportunity to engage me properly to get what they wanted…publicity. All because they were too busy targeting.). Customers are smart enough to know what is going on from that perspective.
Marjorie, looking forward to your take on the situation!
Marc, I don’t mind being ‘targeted’ either, I often respond to traditional marketing (like an ad or direct mail piece, both of which I love!) that I know is aimed at me. The music industry comments surprise me though. You and Jennifer don’t like the words market, publics, stakeholders…why? Because music is different than selling a hammer or a service? Do you think that people on the other end of the targeting don’t like being considered a target or a market or an audience just as much as in the music (or any art) industry? The MBA question is something I’ve never thought of. It could be and would be interesting to find out. For me personally, no. I teach both my undergrads and grads the same terminology in both PR and Marketing (I teach from an integrated perspective).
Interesting Beth. I’m not sure in the real business scheme of things whether music is different than a hammer or a service. For me, music is my #1 passion, so it’s sacred…and using terms like “market” just violates that for me. When I managed bands, I didn’t like to think of playing to our fans in Iowa City or Madison or Chicago as “targeting a market”. It was “performing for our fans in city X”. All that other terminology just felt wrong to me. Maybe it is the art industry issue that you mention. I don’t think anyone wants to feel like a target or a market, regardless of the product. If there is a dialogue, whether on line or off, that’s different. An offline example that I like is when a truck filled with a new cold drink product pulls up to the beach or the end of the hiking trail to hand out free samples. We’re all clearly targeted there as thirsty, active, outdoorsy people but it feels more like a dialogue.
.-= Marc Luber´s last blog ..Public Relations Careers- PR Exec Gini Dietrich Tells All =-.
Marc, exactly!! There are a lot of brands that I am a “fan” of and I like it when they treat me like a fan, not a target. Passion is passion…whether it’s for music or art or a product or service.
When I get a call from a brand that I love to let me know that a new item is in I get excited and can’t wait to make the trip to their boutique. But emailing me with messaging after you just talked to me is just stupid and a waste of resources.
Hi Beth,
You say, “Sure, marketing and PR pros get is social media tools. What many don’t get is people relations.” I agree with this completely. Many of the social media leaders talking about conversation, engagement, and being social ignore the people who reach out to them via comments, tweets, or emails. Some make it impossible to access them except through a public forum. They say that it is a new marketing world and traditional marketing is dead, while regularly sending email campaigns promoting their latest product on “how to use social media.” It is hypocrisy in the best light, manipulation in the worst. Eventually, the people will stop believing the hype and look for real solutions.
The real challenge for marketers is finding the balance between push and engagement. While no one wants to be a target, the reality is that without campaigns, tactics, targeting, strategy, and the other push marketing techniques, many people will never be introduced to companies and products. Engagement is impossible without an introduction.
The biggest problem I see is that many marketers forget the engagement part after the introduction. It’s the same old thought process that people are targets until they become customers. When they become customers, they are valuable while making deposits and annoying if they do anything else. It’s a “just give me the money and leave me alone” philosophy.
The people who integrate their marketing tools and understand that customers need stroking will make the most of the social media. The rest will be left behind wondering what happened.
Thank you for another great post. It’s why I keep coming back to your blog.
.-= Debra Ellis´s last blog ..Stop Sending Your Website Visitors Down the Rabbit Hole =-.
Debra, just like Keith you’ve clarified the situation even more.
“When they become customers, they are valuable while making deposits and annoying if they do anything else. It’s a “just give me the money and leave me alone” philosophy.”
Indeed. As you know, I believe in traditional marketing and I think it still works. I use all of those words that I’ve listed. I still develop ‘targeted campaigns’ when they make sense. But when we take that step into being social, we have the opportunity to get to put names and faces with customers, listen to their suggestions, work with them throughout the buy cycle (multiple departments), make sure the brand promise is being delivered and fix it if it’s not. We never had that kind of access to data, engagement and relationships (even if just a one off interaction) before (and, please, focus groups and biased surveys don’t count). But as you said, integration is key. Know why you are doing so and only do it when it makes the most sense. Stop with the shotgun approach.
Beth,
I agree completely. This is an exciting phase in marketing. Social media provides the missing link for true one-to-one marketing. Having direct access to customers, prospects, and naysayers is a gift. We need to use it wisely.
This is a great discussion and want to explore Debra’s comment:
“The real challenge for marketers is finding the balance between push and engagement. While no one wants to be a target, the reality is that without campaigns, tactics, targeting, strategy, and the other push marketing techniques, many people will never be introduced to companies and products. Engagement is impossible without an introduction. The biggest problem I see is that many marketers forget the engagement part after the introduction.”
Whether PR practitioners or marketers, this is an interesting dynamic. The focus, for the most part, is on accumulating followers, fans and/or readers as a way to drive one’s own marketing messages. I’ve rarely seen true engagement on the level that Zappos does with its customers.
Which leads to another point to explore. We’re discussing who owns social media as part of the marketing or PR function. While marketing or PR can initiate the program, I believe that full participation of the entire organization is required to truly have a successful program.
For example, if your goal is to improve your net promoter scores, you have to get customer service involved. Otherwise, there will be a disconnect for consumers who are receiving one message from marketing and PR lead social media campaigns but experiencing something different with customer service.
So I would add to your point Beth – “Know why you are doing so and only do it when it makes the most sense. Stop with the shotgun approach.” And make sure that the right stakeholders are also on board and participating.
Beth,
What a terrific read.
I am on the same page with some others where I do feel it’s important to have strategies and tactics when it comes to launching a social media “plan” for a client. However, what I get from your post is to not forget what social media is about when that plan is being launched. SM is about engagement and connection with the consumer—if that is the ultimate goal, then I am all for strategies, tactics, and numbers. But if the goal is simply about some version of ROI, then the team handling the plan doesn’t understand what social media is truly about.
.-= Cristian Gonzales´s last blog ..CristianIsDaMan- Talk about treating employees like crap RT @forbes McDonald’s Brags About Selling Workers Appalling Health Coverage http-bitly-d2xdkr =-.
[...] Dear Marketing and PR Pros: You’re Still Pushing. I love Beth Harte. Anything she says or does I think is fantastic. Everything from the amazingly [...]
[...] I read two very good blogs posts from Tim Dyson (The end of Push PR/Marketing) and Beth Harte (Dear Marketing & PR Pros: You’re still pushing) regarding the broadcast tendency of public relations and marketing [...]
[...] Dear Marketing & PR Pros: You’re Still Pushing I read two very good blogs posts from Tim Dyson (The end of Push PR/Marketing) and Beth Harte (Dear Marketing & PR Pros: You’re still pushing) regarding the … http://www.theharteofmarketing.com/2010/09/…/comment-page-1 [...]
[...] Focus On Message Pushing: Marketers (and publicity folks, too) like to push their messages regardless of how the market pushes back. They often ignore how prospects and customers perceive [...]