Marketing

Over the past few weeks, a number of people have posted about where social marketing "fits" in the organizational structure of a company, what sort of outside service agency is best positioned to help companies with their social media marketing efforts and how do we define expertise in this new field. Among them, and apologies if I leave anyone off: Todd Defren, Dave Fleet, Susan Getgood (that’s me), Josh Hallet, Kami Huyse, Geoff Livingston, and Jeremy Pepper.

Is PR the rightful functional "owner" of social media? Or should it be marketing or advertising that gets the ball? Perhaps social media marketing is just a subset of word-of-mouth marketing? With everybody and his brother now hanging out their shingles as blogging experts and social media gurus, how does a company determine who has the expertise and experience to help it navigate these waters? 

My opinion:

The functional lines between our marketing disciplines of PR, direct marketing and advertising are blurring. Social media marketing requires a blending of marketing and PR/communications skills. BTW, this line is blurring everywhere but it is more readily and immediately apparent in the social media world than offline. But it is offline too. Remember that online social networks are reflections of the interests and affiliations we have "in real life." Computer networks simply speed up the effect.

The other line that is blurring beyond recognition is the line between seller and buyer, journalist and audience. Now more than ever, we have multiple roles, sometimes almost simultaneously. A mommy blogger is a customer of a consumer products company, but at the same time, she might be a mompreneur with her own small or medium sized business. Journalists are bloggers; bloggers are journalists. Again, a reflection of similar real-world shifts, amplified by the Internet. We all gets lots of spam.

Whether social media marketing is a new marketing discipline, or simply a tectonic shift in Marketing with a capital M, I do not know. What I do know is that in order for it to thrive, for companies to be able to detect the real experts from the sham, for individuals to develop their skills to meet the new imperatives, we need to understand that it is a discipline. Not a project. Not an extension of PR or advertising or web marketing. Not something you can learn in a week from reading Naked Conversations and Boing-Boing.

You need a solid grounding in marketing and public relations. The social media component isn’t separable from the marketing plan. Everything still needs to track back to the plan, the objectives, the business goals. It isn’t enough to know HOW to do something. You need to know WHY. Real experience in the field helps. Extensive coursework or an undergraduate degree in psychology or sociology is very useful. Some philosophy too. A soupcon of "renaissance person" such as a second language and familiarity with great literature doesn’t hurt.

Most of all, we need credibility for this new discipline. Provided in part surely by our ongoing practice. The good examples. But that alone isn’t enough.

We need the supporting academic research. That is what gives any discipline its "legs." Without it, social media marketing is tactics. Campaigns. Maybe strategies. But not a legitimate discipline or profession in the long term. 

Which is why I encourage you to support the Society for New Communications Research, and specifically the  upcoming Annual Gala and Research Symposium to be held in Boston December 5th and 6th.

As practitioners, we need the information and insights from the research that will be presented at the Symposium, and that is reason enough to attend.  More importantly, we need to support  research organizations like SNCR because they provide part of the academic base. Can’t attend, but wish you could? Send someone in your stead — a junior colleague, a friend. No one to send? Make a supplemental donation to SNCR in support of the Symposium.

It can’t happen without you.

Tags: SNCR, Society for New Communications Research, social media marketing, marketing, PR

Well, the week started with the shot heard round the world, 21st century style: Chris Anderson, the editor in chief of Wired, blogged more than 300 email addresses that had spammed him in one form or another — mistargeted pitches, unsolicited newsletters and so on — in the past 30 days. And this followed right on the heels of Marshall Kirkpatrick’s 5 bad pitches post the previous week.

I’m sure that a large number of the folks outed in Anderson’s email were just in the wrong place (his email box) at the wrong time (October 07). They made a mistake. Do they deserve to be raked over the coals forever? No, and they won’t be. They may never get off his list but I doubt it will ruin their reputations or their careers.

And some of them don’t have reputations to ruin. Being on the Anderson blacklist won’t affect them in the slightest because they will just get another email address and spam away. They don’t care, and they never will.

Nevertheless, much online conversation ensued. Most commenters sympatized or empathized with Anderson’s plight. Some approved of the tactic. Others understood the motivation but didn’t approve of publishing the email addresses. The rant also spawned endless analysis of the state of PR, manifestos for change and the usual apologies for the bad behavior of the profession. [Too many to count, too many to link. To read the many screeds, here’s the Google search and here is Technorati for the terms "Chris Anderson PR" ]

Some commentary was good, some less so, but, really, it all felt like more of the same to me. Public outcry over bad PR practice, much gnashing wailing and wringing, promises to do it better, to make it better, god damn it. But it doesn’t seem to get better. Not really. This blog is almost three years old, and the more things change… 

The responsible practitioners of PR — the good guys — are still faced with unrealistic client expectations, a societal attitude that PR people are guilty until proven innocent and really bad PR practice from some members of the profession. Witness the truly juvenile behavior from two flacks, and I use this term deliberately, who used Anderson’s rant as an excuse to engage in some mutual, public mudslinging and attempted client poaching. Perhaps someone told them that any PR is good PR? Umm, no, and if that’s the sort of advice they give their clients…

And mixed up in the commentary was a theme started the week before by Jeremy Pepper in  PR will lose Social Media to Advertising Because of Sex, a manifesto of sorts for PR to change its ways or risk losing the "fight" for social media to the dreaded Marketers.

This is a far more interesting topic. No, not because of the sex. The title of the post was just a tease. Good tactic, that. I’ll have to use it someday 🙂

In my opinion,  we have to look at this conversation, this communication with our customers, with a completely different lens. Keep seeing it as a battle for supremacy, nobody wins. Not PR. Not marketing. Not the companies. And definitely not the customers.

In a post after the Anderson rant, Jeremy calls for better education, and that’s a start. But I don’t think it’s enough.

We have to break down the functional walls between PR and marketing. PR isn’t the rightful "master of social media" because of its traditional role as counselor, any more than marketing is because it has been the traditional channel to the customer.  You have to be able to do both, and you have to be willing to give up some of the most deeply held, profound assumptions about the "right" way to do things in the parent disciplines.

For example, press releases. Still useful, whether new or old form, when communicating with journalists, including journalistically inclined bloggers. Usefulness to customers. Not so much. The detached, impersonal format just doesn’t tell them everything they need to know. Now, neither does a hyped up direct mail piece. Sure, direct response has its place, but it is generally to encourage action, not to share information.

I firmly believe a blogger wants a meld of both. An honest, open, relevant communication with a clear benefit statement that tells her WIIFM. What’s In It For Me. To do this, you have to know, really know, what is in it for her. [Sidebar: I expect journalists would be happy if they got this much honesty too. More on that another time.]

The best social media marketing people won’t be PR people. Or marketing people. They will have a skill set that blends both disciplines. Whether you are at an agency or in a company, start developing this — in yourself, in your teams.

Stop worrying about whether PR or marketing is going to win. The answer is neither. And both.

The only thing that’s certain? If you keep thinking of it as a fight, with a winner, you will be the loser.

That, and if you spam Chris Anderson, one strike and you’re out.

Time to start breaking down some walls.

Tags: Chris Anderson, Jeremy Pepper, PR, marketing, social media