Social media is not a cure-all. Yet it is often treated as a marketing magic elixir. It can be difficult to sort the promise from the hype.
Jennifer Nelson kindly pointed me to a short book by Dan Zarrella, Hierarchy of Contagiousness, where he poses the question, “are you a snake-oil salesman or are you a scientist?”
In these early days of social media, there’s a lot of snake oil peddling. It’s easier to talk in generalities than specific outcomes. Metrics are often skewed toward a superficial number of friends and followers. ROI is considered a topic to avoid. As a result, social media programs are at risk of losing their credibility.
“If you’ve read about social media or been to any marketing conferences, you’ve probably heard tons of advice like ‘love your customers,’ ‘engage in the conversation,’ ‘be yourself’ and ‘make friends.’ I call this ‘unicorns-and-rainbows advice.’ Sure, it sounds good and it probably makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, but it’s not actually based on anything more substantial than ‘truthiness’ and guesswork.”
Zarrella recommends taking a scientific approach to social media, much as snake oil quackery evolved into real medicine.
“After centuries of superstition in medicine, along came real science — hard facts and real data about what works and what doesn’t. Medicine moved out of the Dark Ages, and scientists started making progress in the search for the causes and cures for diseases. Now it’s time for social media to move past mythology and into measurable outcomes.”
I like the idea that we are entering an age of science in social media. It will require thinking beyond the hype. That’s when the real magic happens.
(Marketoonist Monday: I’m giving away a signed print of this week’s cartoon. Just share an insightful comment to this week’s post. I’ll pick one comment by 5:00 PST on Monday. Thanks!)
George Julian says
November 27, 2011 at 11:47 pmTom, great post as ever – every week I love your posts but I’ve never been inspired to comment before now, but I *love* this post. Is one of my pet hates that those involved with social media seem to forget that they are mostly talking to converts (if they’re talking using social media) and that they are scamming people if they promise the earth with their services – in my experience success is dependent on relationships and there are few shortcuts to them.
I’ve written two posts that speak to this topic, that may be of interest:
Social media metrics: reach ≠ quality
http://georgeblogs.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/social-media-metrics-reach-%E2%89%A0-quality/
Social Media is not the answer!
http://georgeblogs.wordpress.com/2011/01/26/social-media-is-not-the-answer/
Thanks for a great thought provoking start to Monday, George
Martyn says
November 28, 2011 at 12:34 amI worked with a film company recently who told me they made viral video. Intrigued to learn the secrets of their success, the producer eventually said “well, when I mean viral, I mean we put it on the web, places like YouTube”. So, not really viral then? “no, just for the web really”. He wins my social media snake oil award, since he’d promised viral video to the client, but really had no ability to deliver anything beyond the video.
Ian_Singleton says
November 28, 2011 at 6:20 amOnce upon a time, the marketing department asserted a proportionate relationship between the size of the marketing budget and the awareness of the brand – and hence sales. It was an exacting discipline for professionals not amateurs.
Social media introduced a huge degree of chaos into that assertion and removed the false distinction between professional and amateur.
In order to move on from snake oil, we need to develop some tools for digital anthropology in order to answer questions like:-
Who are the individuals whose opinions we trust, on whose authority we change our behaviour and on whose recommendations we spend our money?
Rick says
November 28, 2011 at 7:02 amWhat many clients fail to consider is that effective use of social media requires an ongoing time commitment — coupled with a solid strategy and forethought. While many folks say they’re all jazzed up about, and committed to using social media, when presented with the realities of allocating staff resources (or hiring a third party) to manage and maintain that effort, their appetite for social media diminishes considerably.
Remember when desktop computing first entered the public consciousness? The snake-oil concepts were “just push a button and the computer will do it for you” and “we’ll never need to print anything ever again.” Today, “our business will really grow if we just use social media” takes on the mantle of “wishing it were so” . . . when the reality is far more subtle, complex, and demanding.
Zarrella is spot-on with his assertion that “it’s time for social media to move past mythology and into measurable outcomes.” Let’s hope the clients begin to understand (and embrace) that concept, too!
Sarah Fleury says
November 28, 2011 at 10:04 amI can’t help but draw a parallel with “Moneyball”, fresh in my mind having seen the movie at the weekend.
Are you familiar with the story? The Oakland A’s baseball team were faced with crisis, having lost key players, and with budget a fraction of those of the big teams. But by fundamentally questioning the metrics that mattered in the sport and how players were evaluated, the Oakland A’s were able to cut through the consensus of the time on what made a good team, a good player. The newly formed team, bought using their new evaluations, went on a record breaking run.
Small ‘David’ budgets, by understanding and chasing the right metrics, can beat spends of Goliath proportions. Are your social media scouts on the ball, on the money?!!
trying hard says
November 28, 2011 at 10:24 amMy interest in social media did not diminish at all. In fact it has increased. I got experts to do the job for me (MagicBuz) and considering what I had to pay them it has been worth much more than any cent invested. If you have any hesitations about the power of social media then I suggest that you think twice
Rosy Saadeh says
November 28, 2011 at 10:48 amCouldn’t agree with this more. Social media takes time and will not result in an immediate viral reaction. Content is needed and the product being promoted must also be considered. E.g., if you are selling an energy drink your strategy will be different than if you are promoting the mining industry.
Budgets don’t have to be astronomical in social media, but then neither should expectations.
Allen Roberts says
November 28, 2011 at 10:56 amTom,
Love it!!
Allen
Jennifer Nelson says
November 28, 2011 at 2:26 pmHi Tom,
I’m glad you found my reco valuable! The post and fabulous comments you’ve gotten today inspired me to share a (long) thought:
I’ve been luck enough to hear Vijay Govindarajan give his talk on “Thinking inside the Boxes” (and you all can read a .pdf of it if you Google the name and title). In this talk, there are three boxes – 1, managing the present, 2, selectively abandoning the past and 3, creating a new future. He demonstrates the difference easily with the four major eras of the high jump. First there was the “scissors” technique, and most worked on improving their skills in this method. That is box 1 thinking. Someone came along and invented the “western roll” and then the “eastern roll” and then the Fosbury Flop — each of which enabled entirely new heights to be reached vs. the very best of the preceding method. But those who first pioneered the new technique — that is box 3 thinking, making the future and not just managing (improving)the parameters of the present.
By using “real” analytics in social media, we not only have the ability to enhance the performance of what we currently do (box 1), but — even more inspiring — we have methods and frameworks to selectively (meaning learn from then make choices on what to) abandon, and leap to box 3: re-invent, soaring to new heights and higher impact. I can’t wait to see what the Fosbury flop of social media looks like!
Margaret says
November 28, 2011 at 5:13 pmTo “like” or not to “like”
That is the question.
Simon Espley says
November 28, 2011 at 9:35 pmSo social media is no different to all other forms of marketing then …
tomfishburne says
November 29, 2011 at 10:07 amHi all,
Really great perspective from everyone, thanks! This has become one of my most licensed cartoons, so the snake oil metaphor seems to have struck a chord. I love Martyn’s suggestion for a snake oil award.
This week’s cartoon goes to Sarah Fleury for the connection to the insights in Moneyball. This is exactly the opportunity that awaits early adopter scientists in a landscape filled with social media snake oil.
I had already planned to also send an additional print to Jennifer for recommending Zarrella’s book, buti I also love her analogy of Vijay Govindarajan’s boxes as it pertains to social media.
Many thanks, everyone!
-Tom
jeffcarroll says
January 7, 2012 at 4:40 pmLove it!