Jump to content

Cre8asiteforums Internet Marketing
and Conversion Web Design


Photo

Look Beyond S M M


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 iamlost

iamlost

    The Wind Master

  • Site Administrators
  • 4621 posts

Posted 11 November 2011 - 02:56 PM

It is interesting (to me quite intriguing) how scope creep develops in job or term descriptions. SEO (search engine optimisation) is one example, SMM (social media marketing) is another. The danger when a term goes beyond it's natural bounds is that it overshadows all else. This is certainly the case with SMM, it is used almost as a generic everything social bucket term. If so...
There's a hole in the (SMM) bucket, dear webdev, dear webdev,
There's a hole in the (SMM) bucket, dear webdev,
There's a hole.

Then fix it dear iamlost, dear iamlost, dear iamlost,
Then fix it dear iamlost, dear iamlost, fix it.

And so I shall. Try...

How?
By not stuffing more than social media marketing into the SMM bucket and by arranging other social business interest buckets such that each is separate yet can overflow into the others. Hey, if it works with stairs why not buckets?

Whether stairs or buckets - the metaphor is immaterial - each needs to be identified and value determined so that your unique business social media strategy requirements can be posited.
Here is one example set (with example subsets) of buckets:
* market research == consumer insights == customer social communities identification ->
* customer experience == customer care and service ->
* reputation management == crisis management ->
* social media marketing == digital brand and presence strategy == promotion ->
* social media sales ->
* social media technology and tools requirements ->
* business intelligence ->

The critical thing to remember is that much of the value of SM is in the information/intelligence that it can provide. So...
* listen
* ask questions
* identify persons and places of interest and influence.
* network

The important thing to remember is that you need to develop a process to incorporate the received information (from above) into your SM business strategies and tactics. SM is fluid so your SM business framework must be flexible and accommodate change easily. Not a bad business model generally.

Funny that SM marketing is not really 'the' initial bucket or stair or step, that for so many the SMM tail is wagging the SM dog. Or even swallowing it. Yes, I've let slip the metaphors.

Another point I'd like to make, that flows from the above, is that much of what I've mentioned does not require the creation of content but instead the use/repurposing of others' content. Data mining. Not necessarily a bad thing.

And then use it to better your content, your business, your own way for your customers. And look beyond SMM. There is more. Really.

#2 DCrx

DCrx

    Hall of Fame

  • 1000 Post Club
  • 1285 posts

Posted 11 November 2011 - 05:06 PM

It's marketing. Period.

No online. No search. No viral. No social. The "creative tomorrow" dawns when the sun sets on all this, and it becomes just marketing.

It is either sound marketing; or fad chasing and buzzword compliance. Usually with a heavy emphasis on what sounds good, but is untested and unproven.

Edited by DCrx, 11 November 2011 - 05:12 PM.


#3 iamlost

iamlost

    The Wind Master

  • Site Administrators
  • 4621 posts

Posted 12 November 2011 - 11:13 AM

It's marketing. Period.

I absolutely agree. There is, however, a fundamental problem: there are few instances where such an holistic approach exists in reality. Steve Jobs broadly accomplished it by being an overarching driving force connecting Apple's disparate departments. I expect Apple to fade to normalcy within five years.

Modern business is neither institutionally nor structurally constituted for the new online, especially online social, reality. It barely functions offline except to exist. The smaller traditional (local, family) business likely grasps the social/customer aspect better but may lack the time and technical expertise required.

I see too many horrendous recommendations offered and behaviours enacted in the name of social media marketing to simply sit back and laugh-cry. While I would like to, as you, call the entire product/service to market process 'marketing', which is technically correct, that is, unfortunately, not how business is structured nor how it behaves. What is perceived as offline marketing must frequently be flipped on it's head online to the anguish of many surprised 'experts'. And many SMM 'experts' have no idea about business or business goals.

So, by separating out and highlighting various process components I hoped (1) to, if not broaden perception, offer multiple foci on the subject; and (2) generate a response from DCrx. At least I managed the second. :)

#4 EGOL

EGOL

    Professor

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 5440 posts

Posted 12 November 2011 - 11:44 AM

SMM is being touted as the "silver bullet" these days.

Just like blogs were touted as the "silver bullet" a few years ago.

For the silver bullet to work you need to have it loaded in the proper gun and aimed by a person who knows how to shoot.

Some people have discovered that a blog is not much different from any other website... but a few still think that they are "silver bullets".

I think that a lot more money is being wasted on social media by businesses than is being earned from it..

#5 AbleReach

AbleReach

    Peacekeeper Administrator

  • Site Administrators
  • 6467 posts

Posted 12 November 2011 - 08:21 PM

For a silver bullet to work you'd need to hit a werewolf.

#6 DCrx

DCrx

    Hall of Fame

  • 1000 Post Club
  • 1285 posts

Posted 13 November 2011 - 01:25 PM

Let's talk examples.

It’s been [over] two years since Starbucks jumped into the deep waters of social media with their MyStarbucksIdea.com program. This is a website where customers submit and discuss ideas on ways Starbucks can improve its business.

--Tough Love For Starbucks


[Edited - at the time of the article it was "almost two years"]

80,000 Ideas submitted. Fifty-three used. With forty-seven of those ideas which were in the pipeline before ...things they were going to do anyway.

So the "social marketing ratio" is 80,000-to-6. That is low enough to say six ideas accidentally got through. Random dumb luck would argue that number should be higher. That is to say, if all the ideas were instead buried in a time capsule, then dug up, more than six ideas would have been things Starbucks came up with on its own.

Okay, the management argument was there were ideas which conflict with the branding. First, since Starbucks has gone off-brand with everything you could think of (now they want to do fruit juices) the argument fails to pass the sniff test.

Next, the ratio itself is a strong message for change. Something is screwy about the way the company is communicating with customers. You don't need to be a marketing expert to detect such a strong social signal of impending calamity. Starbucks got a canary in the coal mine alarm that their information system has flatlined.

Social equivalent of a server crash. And they hit the snooze button. If there really were that many totally bad brand-killing ideas, then it's a failure of communicating the brand.

But hey, it's not marketing, per se. It's a big, Fat. Social. Experiment. Well, not really an experiment, because experimenters take heed of results, change methodology, run a number of trials, and above all do try to learn from failures to improve results.

A simple suggestion box. And electricity. A "SMM bucket," if you will. Somehow one wishes to believe the college educated would have done better getting the two together. Although I imagine putting a paper shredder inside the suggestion box accurately describes it. Not really social marketing though.

Antisocial is still social. ...right?

Marketing knows how to design systems for accurate, actionable, feedback. This was not that. Somebody dun shot a hole in that ther bucket with their silver bullet.

Point being, were the goal not buzzword compliance but marketing. Not being tragically hip, but getting closer to the customer. If marketing wasn't sooo five minutes ago and old economy dull (not to forget, totally clueless ...we musn't forget how stupid and backwards offliners are) ; I wonder what would have happened.

Edited by DCrx, 13 November 2011 - 02:11 PM.


#7 glyn

glyn

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2544 posts

Posted 14 November 2011 - 04:43 AM

iamlost, what meds are you on today :)

DCrx - I knew that you would be in this thread before I saw your reply :)

Social media has good opportunity but it is being driven by platform functionality not by strategy. If the large proportion of companies stopped to think a minute they would actaully do something that has value.


In the meantime it's the kingdom of the blind at the cost of "social media experts" charging out fees like SEO used to be charged out 10 years ago.

Posted Image
caption: I am your guru

:)

#8 A.N.Onym

A.N.Onym

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Invited Users For Labs
  • 4003 posts

Posted 14 November 2011 - 10:19 AM

I'll pass discussing how marketing (isn't) integrated into 99.999..9% of businesses, since it just falls on deaf ears (of business owners).

I'll just mention that SMM can be used for ROI, as long as it's properly strategized, measured, analyzed and improved. And it's been done previously, just search for "social media ROI case study" or something similar. Of course, for 1 successful SMM ROI story, there are dozens of known and lots more unknown failures. Well, most people are learning how to apply offline marketing to online, so this ratio isn't surprising or unexpected.

One example of this is the the Teaching Sells strategy/roadmap. It's been done by Brian Clark/TS itself and repeated by a few others (SEObook and Lyndon Antcliff among them) with different levels of profit. Hopefully, you were lucky to have downloaded the 2011 free report, because the subscription has been recently stopped at nearly $2k for 6 months :)

Thus, I wouldn't label SMM as worthless. Everything can be worthy, if done properly, which is as hard as simple it sounds :)

Edited by A.N.Onym, 15 November 2011 - 04:20 AM.


#9 DCrx

DCrx

    Hall of Fame

  • 1000 Post Club
  • 1285 posts

Posted 14 November 2011 - 05:53 PM

New shirt for Starbucks: "We are the 99.999 ...9%"

Hey, I bet t-shirts will be their next brand misadventure.

Edited by DCrx, 14 November 2011 - 05:55 PM.


#10 DCrx

DCrx

    Hall of Fame

  • 1000 Post Club
  • 1285 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 04:28 AM

Posted Image


The Hype Cycle.

Essentially, the mindless frenzy of crowds. Social (mass) psychology.

What's social? Allow me to suggest, you wanna start with social? Wanna avoid SMM pitfalls and get the benefit? Start with listening.

The difference between listening and pretending to listen, I discovered, is enormous. One is fluid, the other is rigid. One is alive, the other is stuffed. Eventually, I found a radical way of thinking about listening. Real listening is a willingness to let the other person change you. When I’m willing to let them change me, something happens between us that’s more interesting than a pair of dueling monologues.”
Alan Alda, Never Have Your Dog Stuffed: And Other Things I've Learned



Starbucks wasn't into listening. That is not a platform functionality problem. It's a social media frenzy problem. It's the zeitgeist of the 'net problem of cargo cultism and not being a technological society but a pre-technology society who isn't mature enough to handle the electrical gadgets they have.

There is no platform functionality problem. Everybody's for output. Nobody's for input. That's the problem. Technology functions just fine. It reflects the all output, no input problem like a mirror. Starbucks wants people to just shut up and buy more.

Hope was, they'd tire themselves out at MyStarbucksIdea and get to buying.

When people realize the technology is exactly what they specified, technology will change. And not until.

Edited by DCrx, 15 November 2011 - 04:49 AM.


#11 A.N.Onym

A.N.Onym

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Invited Users For Labs
  • 4003 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 09:51 AM

That's a very good point: few companies listen. I think Dell listened in their social media case once. And maybe a few others.

Btw, one of the places, where social is rarely discussed outside of enterprise circles is internal enterprise social thing, built on Atlassian/Lotus/other. It has lots of potential, at least IBM uses it to store/find relevant information/people quickly and I suspect some people are heard there. In those cases, it's about the upper management, but rarely are they willing to listen :(

Perhaps, when companies do realize that they can improve their profit and see a clear way to do this, they are more willing to listen. Maybe it's a case for building more realistic, metrics-driven SMM campaigns for the web as well?

So, it still comes down to good old marketing: define, measure, analyze, improve. Oh well.

P.S. Oh, so that's an Alan Alda's quote. Nice!

Edited by A.N.Onym, 15 November 2011 - 09:52 AM.


#12 DCrx

DCrx

    Hall of Fame

  • 1000 Post Club
  • 1285 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 10:19 AM

Okay. What's the most egregious SMM thing everybody uses? The default "X wants you to join their network" invite.

Nobody needs to hire a team of programmers to change the functionality of anything to deal with it. If your computer came with a keyboard you can start SMMing.

Edited by DCrx, 15 November 2011 - 10:20 AM.


#13 A.N.Onym

A.N.Onym

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Invited Users For Labs
  • 4003 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 10:24 AM

There's a joke going around in Runet for a while:

- (telephone): Hello, is this a social media expert?
- (quietly): Yes.
- Why do you speak so quietly?
- I'm on an algebra lesson.

#14 DCrx

DCrx

    Hall of Fame

  • 1000 Post Club
  • 1285 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 10:32 AM

Posted Image

#15 DCrx

DCrx

    Hall of Fame

  • 1000 Post Club
  • 1285 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 11:00 AM



#16 A.N.Onym

A.N.Onym

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Invited Users For Labs
  • 4003 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 11:05 AM

Hmm, this topic veered from going beyond SMM to stopping way before SMM. A good, balanced discussion, I suppose :-)

#17 glyn

glyn

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2544 posts

Posted 16 November 2011 - 03:06 AM

For me this is social media marketing...

[warning contains strong language]



#18 DCrx

DCrx

    Hall of Fame

  • 1000 Post Club
  • 1285 posts

Posted 16 November 2011 - 05:03 AM

That is marketing ...all up in ther. I know it is successful because I like it ...but have no intention of ever buying Kswiss. I rationalize this by saying I wasn't their target market. If I like it ..it worked as marketing. Somebody bought. ...Somewhere. I'm sure.

If I say viral media, it will end the awkward silence.


I am imagining the pitch meeting right now ....




I have a fan-tas-tic idea; we'll take web development (strip out any mention of users or testing) and mix it with branding like this. And we shall call it user experience. Because, of course, who can prove the user didn't have some experience or 'nother.

No. Wait. Not Bruckheimer enough. I'll take one phoney baloney term and mix it with another, Social User Experience SuperMedia. (SUXS)

Of course, super is implied ... because it's on the information superhighway.

We'll trade quips and movie clips, and bill clients for it. It'll be great. Much better than watching TV and playing video games on office time, because they'll fire you for that. Now that is so far beyond SMM it's like we're not talking about anything anymore.

Edited by DCrx, 16 November 2011 - 06:07 AM.


#19 glyn

glyn

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2544 posts

Posted 16 November 2011 - 07:16 AM

O rationalize this by saying I wasn't their target market. If I like it ..it worked as marketing. Somebody bought. ...Somewhere. I'm sure.


Could be suffering from third person affect :)

#20 DCrx

DCrx

    Hall of Fame

  • 1000 Post Club
  • 1285 posts

Posted 16 November 2011 - 08:10 AM

Had a "marketing" discussion with my father once.

He told me about a great coffee ad that was playing on TV. That it had to be successful for whoever came up with it. And what did I think of it?

I asked if he drank coffee -- he said he drank it all the time. I asked if he drank the brand advertised -- he said no. So I offered to run right out -- that very minute and go buy him some -- with money out of my own pocket.

He said, "I don't drink that coffee."

"Then I think it's a bad ad;" I replied.


Is there an effect where the ad agency gets a Clio and the client goes bankrupt? Of evaluating the ad purely based on subjective apprasal of creativity and not results? Ogilvy used to track the time it took between an agency winning the Clio and getting fired for not making the good squiggly line go in the good direction.

Agencies counter with sales not being the point. The point being mass market awareness people wouldn't do business with you if you were the last company on earth. Now, where do I get that job?

Edited by DCrx, 16 November 2011 - 08:23 AM.


#21 A.N.Onym

A.N.Onym

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Invited Users For Labs
  • 4003 posts

Posted 16 November 2011 - 01:39 PM

It reminds me of clients that judge site by the cover, not by the amount of clients it can bring them. Do I need to remind you that such approach usually doesn't end well? ;)

Speaking of said clients, I have some work to do :/

Edited by A.N.Onym, 16 November 2011 - 01:40 PM.




RSS Feed

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users