No, Social media isn’t TV. And you think that’s a bad thing why?

‘Marketers’ still have some thinking to do about our future.  And for all that we tend to prattle on about the customers coming first and respecting our ‘targets’ as people first, purchase-prone message-victims second, I suspect that deep in the collective marketing psyche we’d be happier if they’d just follow the rules we learned in grad school and respond appropriately to reach and frequency. Buy what we tell you, because we told you to.  And we have research to back that up.  So what’s your problem, Mr. Customer?  (Who am I kidding; in CPG land that would be ‘Ms./Mrs. Customer’.  Viva la (gendered) purchaser.)

As you may gather from my  tone, I am not a fan of this approach. And I’m struck by the paradox inherent in MediaPost’s article relating the findings of the new Knowledge Networks report (Check out the link to the mediapost article here:  http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=106445) that ‘social media is ineffective re: advertising’.  For ‘advertising’ as we old reach-n-frequency folks have known it, I’m sure that’s true.   But the Knowledge Report study finds that good ole’ Word of Mouth is still the #1 promotional force in consumerland.  What’s word of mouth?  People talking.  TRUSTED people talking to each other.  And what’s social media?  The same bloody thing.  Advertisers, to be sure, will not be the main thrust of those many, many conversations, and some who try too hard to insert themselves into organic conversations come across as either boorish or clueless.  That’s the reach and frequency game.  Conversations – real ones – are different.  But I challenge the notion that social media isn’t an effective playground for smart marketers.   Word of mouth has always been trickier – and more demanding of actual human understanding, goals and motivations – than the broadcast model.  Why was anyone expecting social media to be different?  Don’t write off the medium because you expected it to function like a TV set.  Rather,  start looking at your customers are people.  They’re not always buying your product, but they are always being themselves.  How can you be relevant to them?   Actually relevant, rather than ‘relevancy powered by quantitative research points’?

Isn’t that the beginning of any good conversation?

- Sarah