DISQUS

ian lurie · 10 months ago

Great post, Barry.

One important point: I didn't say I hated the phenomenon that is now described as social media. It's a wonderful marketing and communications medium.

I DO dislike the overuse of the term by a lot of people who don't know what they're talking about. The sudden explosion of 'social media experts', 90% of whom apparently qualify because they've used Twitter, puts our clients at risk.

Like a credit default swap, social media has its place. But overuse it and it's going to blow up in our faces.

Thanks,

Ian

barryhurd · 10 months ago

Thanks for adding. I always like a good conversation.

From the two articles I took a more personal dislike of the subject from it. Comparing social media to apish hooting would seems like comparing climbing a tree to launching a space shuttle. Are you then simply arguing against the term? If we don't use social media as a term, there are no accurate substitutions for it to my knowledge. Terms like SEO and PR are simply components of the greater whole that may or may not be social media.

There are plenty of real "social media experts" out there, to accept the degradation of the industry/term because too many snake-oil salesmen jumped on the bandwagon is simply the wrong decision (IMHO)

The internet world has often been lacking any valid credential process. As an industry, SEO, E-mail, Affiliate Managers, and now Social Media professionals are being challenged by every person who has a Facebook account. This has always been a problem. The technology and the education/credential process are completely out of alignment.

From a consulting perspective, I actually find that the larger communications and design firms (100+) are usually the ones that have the most grievous claim to being "social media experts". On a weekly if not daily basis, I run across major firms that are trying to implement six or seven figure campaigns with social media and the team responsible has almost no experience/talent in the niche (but hey, who needs experience or talent when you have a $500k contract and an unwitting client?)

As a term: I don't believe it is overused. Most of the professional world I interact with has limited ability to actually define what social media is. When I ask "What is social media?" the most common response is simple "Uhm, blogs... Facebook?"

I do believe that there is little to no education on what social media is. It is rarely defined, and many times when it is defined it is done very poorly. Hopefully we will see more research and educated inquiry rather than sadly watching the blind leading the blind happening in so many instances.

Leo · 10 months ago

Ian may have vested interests in calling Social Media not so new but you have vested interests in promoting social media....

Me? No vested interests at all...social media marketing is not a new concept...it is basically word of mouth marketing specifically made for the online world. It is a new ribbon on an old hat.

Can things spread faster? Sure...if you have the right influencers spreading them for you...Could it break a business with bad PR? Sure....social media has allowed for information channels to be wide open.

Will it make you rich? Maybe but probably not. After all, it is really nothing more than a tool...there are way too many variables that you can't control (unless you are one of those people who game the social news sites).

But this notion that social media is actually a new thing is simply not true.

barryhurd · 10 months ago

Leo, thanks for the commentary (been on your blog before, good stuff)

You are right, I do have a vested interest: not in the exact idea of promoting social media as a radical tool, but promoting the correct ethical, business, and educational ideas around social media. Social media has a place alongside hundreds of other tools to address different needs. In that regard, it is very much like SEO or a good brand: it has the ability to affect the entire mix of tools it is working in conjunction with.

I'm intrigued by your statements simply because it sounds like you say its new, then say it is not- "it is basically word of mouth marketing specifically made for the online world."

Word of mouth marketing didn't exist in the online world. The speed at which a message travels (and to how many) is a fundamental communication change. You could compare this change to such historical changes as the Pony Express, the telegraph, or the Television. We can now relay thousands of word of mouth communications through social media in seconds.

I agree that there are a lot of variables. You can't control what people think (actually, I know some pretty good neuro-scientists that would argue that), but you can measure and monitor reactions faster than any other communication medium available. The ability to quickly adapt to a changing audience response is a unique asset online that can only really be seen in real life events where a good presenter knows how to respond to audience trends. Now online communication has begun to expand this real world interaction to larger audiences- with more audience understanding, faster, cheaper, and with easier scale.

Leo · 10 months ago

Thank Barry, I would agree that social media platforms not only speed message delivery up to the nth power and that if used correctly it is much easier to scale than the once traditional old view way of marketing online.

To clarify my view, I look at social media as merely new tools to use to help expedite your message or brand yourself but I view the marketing source as much of the same old, same old...WOM marketing techniques Of course, the big "crinkle" is most often, you aren't in complete control of the message(then again, when were we ever online?)...this is something that the big retailers absolutely hate (after all, if you can't control the message, where could it possibly go and what if it isn't a good message?)

Word of mouth marketing has been online for years. You can see it in action in forums and message boards in which people refer others to other places. To me, I don't view it any different when someone retweets a post or a comment you made or you wind up being discussed on friendfeed. The message is still getting moved from "one mouth to another". And it really depends on reach.

The big issue with social media, for me at least, is that it doesn't have the same punch in the mouth as say someone who is well known in their community vouching for you. And the static and noise channels in social media platforms is still pretty high. Plus, most social media users are really more in it for the entertainment value than they are looking for an answer to their problem that they would likely get from organic search.

Now I am by no means a "social media" expert, so I may be wrong....it is just how I view things. I do use social media tools though but do so because I enjoy the platforms...not to generate targeted traffic.

I don't necessarily agree with Ian...although it is annoying to see so many people profess to be social media experts...just because someone has made 50,000 twitter followers doesn't imply that they are automatic experts...no matter what they claim. And the hordes of these self made social gurus has really dumbed down this type of marketing.

I guess I am somewhere in the middle of this debate. I still don't think that social media is new though.

Thanks for the response.

Des Walsh · 9 months ago

Thanks for the post and the very handy glossary of terms. Thanks too for your generous sharing on demographics in your Jan 1 post and for your emphasis on education and clarity of thinking and expression. I doubt any of us is ready to die for the *phrase* "social media", but so far I have not seen anyone come up with a more useful term. And speaking about social media just in terms of *tools* misses the point, as you indicate, of the *conversation*.