![[ RSS ]](http://blogs.openforum.com/wp-content/themes/amex2.0/images/icon_rss_12_fff.gif){kind=icon}
Subscribe to this page
Previous
It’s Time to Put This Myth To Rest
John Battelle of SearchBlog | November 25th, 2008 - 12:19 AM
(48) found this useful. Do you? 
The debate is as old as the web itself – what is the role of marketing in a medium that is so clearly driven by interaction and communication? I have a lot of thoughts about this topic, but a recent Ad Age article roused me to address one of the most irritating myths out there: That somehow social media and marketing don’t mix.
Titled “P&G Digital Guru Not Sure Marketers Belong on Facebook,” the article quotes Ted McConnell, Manager of Digital Marketing Innovation at P&G in Cincinnati. The money quote: “What in heaven’s name made you think you could monetize the real estate in which somebody is breaking up with their girlfriend?”
As I read on, I became certain that the article, which has gotten a lot of attention given P&G’s profile in the marketing world, took what was clearly McConnell’s nuanced view and gave it all the subtlety of a Michael Bay film.
“Social networks may never find the ad dollars they’re hunting for because they don’t really have a right to them, said Ted McConnell,” the article begins. It then goes on to lay out the reasoning behind such an assumptive lead: McConnell doesn’t like random banner ads, and Facebook’s targeting, which purportedly solves the issue of randomness, leaves him cold. Given those two things, Ad Age drew what I must say is an extremely lazy conclusion: Advertising on social networks doesn’t work – look, a senior guy from Procter says so!
Well, I’m here to call bull on this myth. And I’m pretty sure McConnell would agree with me.
Let’s break it down. To begin with, the article makes this easy assumption: Social networks are “hunting for ad dollars.” That presumes a very traditional approach to media – that social networks have traditional packaged goods media assets (like, say, a television show or a magazine), and are out “big game hunting” – IE, trying to sell proximity to those assets to “big game” like P&G.
But as I’ve argued (over and over and over) social media “assets” don’t look like packaged goods assets, and neither should social media marketing. As McConnell rightly pointed out, you can’t barge into the middle of an intimate social situation, yell “buy my stuff!” and then leave. A brand that does that will certainly be remembered – as a clod.
And that’s the point. No matter how good the targeting, marketing in a social environment will not work if it fails to grasp the nuance of a particular situation. Algorithms do a great job of finding a target, but they fail miserably at deciding when to pull the trigger (see my rant on ad networks here). So far, there’s simply not an algorithm for understanding the nuance of conversations between humans, and conversations between humans are what drives social media.
So does that mean there’s no future for marketing in social media? Of course not! Quite the contrary: Social media is an extraordinary place to market. But you have to understand the medium you’re in, and act appropriately. In short, as a brand, you have to understand how and when to have a conversation. That’s a new muscle for most marketers, but it’s one many (including, in my experience, P&G) are quickly strengthening. If you take a conversational approach to marketing, targeting algorithms and banner inventory are great tools to help you succeed. But without a conversational approach, they’re cloddish and ineffective, just as McConnell pointed out.
So what do I mean when I say a conversational approach? Well, let’s break down what makes for a great conversation. First, all parties involved are in the conversation because they’ve chosen to be – not because they’re been tricked or cajoled into it. Second, there’s a strong value exchange – a give and take between parties which makes everyone feel like they are gaining something. Critical to this, of course, is the value of listening, internalizing, and responding. Third, each participant understands who the other participants are – there’s transparency and integrity in the conversation.
In order to market conversationally, then, a brand must not simply insinuate itself into the media others make (“Consumers weren’t trying to generate media. They were trying to talk to somebody,” is how McConnell aptly put it), but rather create their own valuable conversations, and/or underwrite organic conversations that contextually make sense for that brand to support. There are scores of examples I could point to where this is already happening (check out Intel’s PopURLs Blue, for example, or even this site, American Express’s Open Forum Blog, a longer list is here).
In short, if your brand creates or underwrites a valuable conversation, you are accruing value to your brand, and more valuable brands, be they soap, computer chips, or charge cards, are brands more folks will buy. Customers will reward brands that have added value to their lives. And at the end of the day, isn’t that what marketing is all about?
Joe Marchese | November 25th, 2008 at 12:29 am
Great points, and very well put. It is all a case of permission. Social is a conversation, what gives you the right as a marketer to be in the conversation? Because an algo told you it made sense, or because a person in the conversation invited you in? That is it!!!!! Marketers are the vampires of social media; they can only come in when invited
----------
Norbert Mayer-Wittmann | November 25th, 2008 at 3:02 am
Well, John: Happiness is a warm gun — but there is a time and a season for every purpose under heaven!
;D nmw
----------
links for 2008-11-25 < Chris Abraham | November 25th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
[…] OPEN Forum by American Express OPEN | It’s Time to Put This Myth To Rest […]
----------
Social media är inte en eller flera tjänster | KAMURSHOL | November 25th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
[…] John Battelles svar på AdAge artikeln. […]
----------
List Your Blog » Blog Archive » Let’s Put This Myth To Rest: Social Media and Marketing | November 25th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
[…] latest rant, up on the Amex Open Forum Blog. From […]
----------
Be as attractive as you can! | Kristofer Mencák | November 26th, 2008 at 3:00 am
[…] John Batelle also comments on the Ad Age article in Open Forum. “In short, if your brand creates or underwrites a valuable conversation, you […]
----------
Kristofer Mencák | November 26th, 2008 at 3:03 am
I agree. Businesses have to engage in the conversation going on, and really engage in dialog.
The challenge lies in giving something that users are interested in, something they want to engage with, something they maybe even would spread the word about in their own networks.
On the Internet, everybody is competing for attention. Businesses no longer compete with just other businesses for attention. They compete with everyone. People are doing whatever they can to be as attractive as possible. Companies should too.
----------
Shelley Ellis | November 28th, 2008 at 10:09 am
I don’t think social users will be offended if ad distributors can ever work out the kinks in targeting for social ads.
Example, if a guy is on Myspace and he’s talking about fighting with his wife or girlfriend and an ad pops up that says “Flowers will make her feel better!” - that’s appropriate advertising. And I don’t think ski enthusiast are going to be offended by ads for 50% off on ski gear.
The biggest problem right now is that none of the programs really have the targeting stuff worked out and they still lean too heavily on demographics. Example: I’m not interested in dieting. My Facebook conversations never mention dieting but advertisers assume that since I’m a 40+ female that I will relate to their ad?
I specialize in strategies for using Google’s enhanced online campaigns as a way to tap into social conversations to target by special interests and even target by more specific demographics (like new baby products to new and expecting mothers) but its not a perfect science.
Maybe some day the engines and ad companies will figure it out.
----------
Gary Savoy | November 28th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Someone has to pay. Advertising or “advertainment” will always be the answer until we figure out a better way. Social media is no different, bills still need to be paid.
I completely agree with Ted’s point, which has been stretched for sensationalism, that advertiser’s don’t get the right to advertise in my personal life. If Ted’s point was accurately portrayed in the media, we’d learn that Ted was starting a necessary debate over how to effectively and tactfully market in social media. Invitation marketing is the next stage of pull marketing. Ted has always been an early adopter. He was one of the first to “get search” at P&G. Long before anyone saw value in search for CPG’s. Kudos Ted!!!
----------
Does Social Media Marketing actually work? « Internet World | November 28th, 2008 at 11:14 am
[…] Media Marketing actually work? By internetworld This is a really thought-provoking piece by John Battelle, who is well known as a digital guru, in response to a recent AdAge piece claiming that advertising […]
----------
Robert Rosenthal | November 28th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
I agree that the Ad Age article seemed like nothing more than one guy’s opinion. Here’s a Freaking Marketing post on the piece:
http://robertrosenthal.typepad.com/blog/2008/11/p-g-digital-advertising-czar-says-facebook-isnt-media-say-what.html
----------
eTc :: El blog de Marketing en Español » Blog Archive » Rompiendo el mito de la mala combinación entre el Social Media y Marketing, | November 28th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
[…] llama la atención esta entrada de John Battelle en el Open Forum Blog de American Express sobre un artículo publicado en Advertising Age, a propósito de la opinión de Ted McConnell, […]
----------
John Grono | November 28th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
From my perspective I think that the above post shows that Ted McConnell “understands people” better than John Battelle. While I agree with Battelle that it IS possible to ‘market’ to people using social networking sites by using nuanced conversations, you have to look at the driving force as to WHY people go to social networking sites - escapism!
Certain individuals on social networking sites MAY be able to be marketed to, but in the main, users in escapist social network mode have their “advertising radars” set to High. They are going there to ESCAPE from the diurnal round - including incessant marketing messages.
So while a handful of people may be persuaded, the majority will either be unaffected, or even worse, dissuaded.
Just because something is possible, doesn’t mean it should be done. To draw a long bow, it is even possible to market at a funeral - but no-one in their right mind would do so.
If the “escapist haven” of social networks are inundated by even the most nuanced of conversations … these people will simply move on to the next haven. End result - spent a lot of money, annoyed a lot of people.
----------
Udi Barone | November 29th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Both are right:
• John is right – social networks marketing can work
• Ted is right – in most cases 13 out of 16 it fails (see Forrester research from July 2008 – “Social Network Marketing Efforts Failing Short”
http://www.researchrecap.com/index.php/2008/07/22/social-network-marketing-efforts-falling-short/
From my experience, most businesses just don’t have the know-how and experience required in doing social networks marketing. Many try to setup a profile and run a contest but then they start to run out of ideas and resources to make it happen.
Here is what it takes to make it happen:
1. Target the most relevant. Targeting by demographics isn’t enough. You should target also by interests and in many times use even more advanced technologies (most users doesn’t specify their interests, surely don’t update them once the profile is up)
2. Make friends with the relevant ones, get to know them and pay them PERSONAL attention
3. Show interest in what they have to say! It’s not about you or your brand, it’s about them!
4. Develop trustworthy and credible relationship via ongoing dialog
It’s not a simple job but it surely feasible!
To make it really worth while the trouble I advice you to target no that the relevant ones but the top influential ones relevant to your brand and discussion topics!
If you are interested in word-of-mouth marketing over social networks but don’t have the time, the resources or the know-how to do it, Bees and Pollen can provide you with a fully managed service on monthly-basis.
I’d be glad to share with you more of my company’s experience in social networking marketing, so feel free to contact me for advice, questions or just an interesting conversation.
http://www.beesandpollen.com/corporate/RequestMoreInfo.aspx?udi
----------
Norbert Mayer-Wittmann | November 29th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
I’m wondering whether one measure of ENGAGEMENT might be whether people continue to participate in a particular topic.
I came “back” to this topic, because I find it interesting — did you? Or has everyone who has participate so far treated it as visit once (only)?.
If web pages are “visit only once”, then is *all* of the content ephemeral? … “Ads”, too?
If so, I guess many people would reevaluate their “engagement” on the web…(?)
IMO, Google uses such a skew — namely highlighting the fresh (sometimes even more so than the relevant). Indeed, sometimes it’s even neither fresh nor relevant (it just has — according to Google — credibility… but Google’s algorithm for credibility is becoming murkier day by day).
----------
John Battelle | November 29th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
it’s interesting to see the diversity in interpretation here, as well as in my email inbox. In short, I am saying that Ted had a nuanced view, but for whatever reason Ad Age and many observers of this space seem not to - marketing in social media works only if you can join a conversation as a marketer. how do you do that in a way that does not intrude, but in fact, adds value? That is the rub!!
----------
We must engage people on THEIR TERMS - DIGITAL STREET JOURNAL | November 29th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
[…] before we see the types of changes we really need. John Battelle made an excellent case for this right here. Conversational marketing. So what do I mean when I say a conversational approach? Well, let’s […]
----------
Kristofer Mencák | November 30th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
I don’t think marketing is the most important thing to do for businesses in social media.
Much more important is to get on the train to the future, interacting, getting feedback and new ideas, to be able to compete in the future. As a by-product, consumers will help market the products/services that have been developed jointly, for you.
----------
John Battelle | December 1st, 2008 at 12:00 am
@Kristofer - I agree! But that, in my view, *is* marketing!
----------
Kristofer Mencák | December 1st, 2008 at 2:01 am
@John Battelle: True! Every interaction with consumers is marketing. And what consumers do as a result of it can also be considered marketing. But I think that point of view is pretty recent, or? I haven’t been in business long enough to know for sure.
For what I think is a great example of how engaging in social media leads to business development, see: http://tinyurl.com/6dqvde
----------
» We must engage people on THEIR TERMS - Marketing Conversation - New Marketing and Social Media by Abraham Harrison LLC Marketing Conversation - New Marketing and Social Media by Abraham Harrison LLC | December 1st, 2008 at 8:25 am
[…] before we see the types of changes we really need. John Battelle made an excellent case for this right here. Conversational marketing. So what do I mean when I say a conversational approach? Well, let’s […]
----------
Tom O'Brien | December 1st, 2008 at 9:29 am
As discussed above, there is nuance here. In communities - people are having conversations with each other. As a marketer you can choose to participate with them on a human level. But it can’t just be a shout-out or a drive-by. This kind of marketing is about relationships - not campaigns.
So both John Battelle and Ted McConnell are right. I think Ted is saying that traditional (read push) marketing does not work in the social space. I agree. John is saying that to be successful in the social space you have to be relevant and add value to the community - he is right too.
But that does not make for good headlines!
Tom O’Brien
MotiveQuest LLC
----------
Joe Marchese | December 1st, 2008 at 11:10 am
I think marketers need to reset that way they think about social media. There is a major myth going around that marketers reach people through social media (the myth Ted is trying to dispel), when the truth is people reach people through social media. So the question to marketers becomes; why would people be willing to spread my message in social media.
I am NOT talking about viral. Henry Jenkins over at MIT put it best when he pointed out that people spread viruses by accident (it is a bad thing). When people spread a message through their social graph, there is most certainly intent and reason involved.
Marketers need to stop trying to broadcast into social media and stop trying to “trick” people into spreading their message. If they simply reset this thinking, they can approach social from a much better base.
----------
Social Apps Becoming a Bigger Piece of the Pie « The Offerpal Media Blog | December 1st, 2008 at 7:05 pm
[…] the Pie Posted on December 1, 2008 by myofferpal We heartily support John Battelle’s “calling bull” on the idea that social media advertising isn’t effective. As he so cogently points out in […]
----------
Bert DuMars | December 2nd, 2008 at 8:53 am
I agree that the social media marketing opportunity is very real. I also agree you must approach it strategically and cautiously - do not interrupt the conversation - engage or underwrite. I had not considered the underwriting of an organic conversation before…excellent point and a great insight for me and my company to consider in the future.
Bert
http://www.socialmediaecosystem.com
----------
MediaVision Blog : Search Engine Marketing » Blog Archive » What’s the future of advertising on social networks? | December 3rd, 2008 at 2:42 am
[…] that doesn’t suit the social network environment. This is an argument that resonates with John Battelle, who says, “No matter how good the targeting, marketing in a social environment will not work if […]
----------
¿Existe un marketing para los medios sociales? | December 3rd, 2008 at 5:12 am
[…] Otros, en cambio, opinan que se está enfocando mal la relación y que se está trasladando las claves de los medios tradicionales a los medios sociales, cuando funcionan de modos completamente distintos. […]
----------
J. Lang | December 3rd, 2008 at 11:00 am
A marketer reaching out to an individual on a social networking sight is not intrusive, it’s rude. Some people even feel a sense of violation from Google’s targeted banners posted beside their g-mail messages. I believe that potentially, it is a marketer’s job to create relvant portals in which visitors choose to spend time in and engage the product. We all like to be invited to exclusive cocktail parties, and why should a virtual gathering space be any different.
----------
Gary Savoy | December 3rd, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Because someone has to pay for us to have a place to “talk amongst ourselves”. It amazes me how ignorant we as industry professionals can be. I agree we need to figure out what the balance and positioning should be, but we need to get over the dilusion that advertisers dont belong in social media.
----------
Kevin Tate | December 4th, 2008 at 12:43 am
Excellent point regarding the distinction between “finding the target” and “knowing when to pull the trigger”.
Seems like many/most of today’s targeting algorithms (for both Ads and Retail) are based on segmentation and collaborative filtering approaches that have very little sense of the “conversational context”.
----------
Social Site Marketing Battle: Better Stick To Opt-In Messages | December 4th, 2008 at 8:00 am
[…] John Battelle, author of The Search, blasted Ad Age for its conclusions. “I’m here to call bull on this myth,” he said, adding that he thought McConnell had […]
----------
Josh McHugh | December 5th, 2008 at 1:35 am
The day is at hand, thanks to Disqus & Intense Debate and even more so via Google Friend Connect and Facebook Connect, where blog comment systems are no longer relatively isolated like this one, but function to extend the comment-conversation outward through each commenter’s social graph.
----------
With Social Media, Follow the 5 Rules of Engagement « Industryblender’s Blog | December 10th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
[…] Social media and marketing: […]
----------
More on corporate blogging: when and how | December 19th, 2008 at 10:55 am
[…] reading an article from a few weeks back on American Express’ Open Blog entitled “It’s Time to Put This Myth to Rest,” by John Battelle of Searchblog. What caught my interest was the myth itself, that social media, […]
----------