Social: To get something you want, you have to give up something you have
It seems we may one day regret the coining of terms like “social media” or “social marketing”. In their use, the very essence of the social conversation is muddled, tainted with notions of media plans, placements, strategy, and ROI.
Traditional media marketers are struggling to adapt to a world where the global conversation is beginning to eclipse the tried-and-true push of interruptive marketing. It is still probably too soon to declare the advertising of the last 100 years dead and buried: TV, radio and print, in-store display advertising and other out-of-home media still consume the vast, vast majority of advertising dollars, and they still command the vast, vast majority of people’s attention.
Still, we all recognize that this is changing, and the drumbeat of “social marketing” is speeding its cadence in large part because the changes in behavior among the Connected Class has been as rapid as the growth of that group itself. But consider:
- 5 years ago Facebook was a student-only closed network with little to no advertising, and there was no such thing as Twitter.
- 10 years ago, AOL was still the predominant method through which most people accessed the Internet, and Google was an unruly 2 year old with a piddling share of the search market.
- 15 years ago, people still bothered to distinguish between the Internet, and the World Wide Web.
- 20 years ago there was no widely accessible World Wide Web.
- 60 years ago, the first multi-episode TV series supported by a single sponsor aired, and next year, the last P&G-produced soap opera will end.
- This year single-sponsor episodic TV became a novelty again.
It took an entire generation to kill a successful marketing channel, and it’s not even dead. Social media may be the darling of 2010, again, but it’s a long way from being the dominant form of media.
And that, perhaps, is the point. What we call social media, and what we are attempting to solidify as a practice in social marketing, is something so incredibly basic that it’s a shame that we had to come up with a new name for it.
Let’s call it: Being Human.
The majority of social network communication is exclusive of any brand, just as the majority of online communication is exclusive of any brand. We talk, chat, tweet and text, and most of the time it has nothing to do with any product or service or company or brand.
Not only are they a manufactured artifice, brands – in their attempt to embody the physical, mental and spiritual attributes to which we are supposed to aspire – are themselves an attempt at control. “Drink This!” “Eat That!” “Smoke These!” they cry, plead, command. “Be Like Him!” “Lust for Her!” “Try these Cookies!” they implore. Brands want to guide you, cajole you, drive you. The language of brand marketing reflects this well, in its aim to drive engagement, upsell, cross-sell and build loyalty. This the language of command and control, marshaling ones forces towards a common goal.
People tend to distinguish between that kind of language, and the more natural, human conversation typical of their interactions with friends, family, coworkers – even people they pass on the street. So when the conversation moves from the street to online, it retains much of its original character.
How out of place, then, is Marketing-Speak. It is “mission-statement-speak”, ill-suited for carrying on a conversation with a human. Marketing-Speak seeks an audience, eyeballs, clickthroughs and conversions. But it cannot communicate with people.
To participate in the social conversation – to at least have a hope of being a welcome participant – you will need to leave behind the dubious comfort of your marketing plan, your media plan, TRPs, and GRPs.
You will need to relinquish control over your message.
You will have to give up ownership of your brand.
