With all the discussion on what social media is, what it’s future will be like, who will control it, I often feel we fail to see the forest for the trees.

I see it as too diverse of a phenomenon to pin down with one easy definition. Its applications go far beyond the neat capsules that can be used to pick a particular department or function that should “own” it. Social media is creating, empowering, and accompanying a paradigm shift in the way we use all media.

Are we fully there yet? Of course not. These are only the early stages, part of an evolutionary process that often comes step by step. But those steps are happening and happening and soon we’ll look back and be amazed how far we’ve traveled. Then before we know it again, we’ll be stepping again and look back again and we’ll be amazed how much we’ve come from that first time we looked back.

Yes, organizations are going to have to harness social media in ways that they can benefit from, to reach ROI. This means trying to create some sort of structure for it without “siloizing” it. Very difficult indeed.

I’ve tried to lay out what I see social media as. Not from a specific definitional standpoint, but from a several miles up point of view.

Interested in your feedback… Read more…

I’ve been noticing some serious discussions lately on the future of social media.

Steve Rubel sees it as becoming so dispersed around the enterprise that it no longer becomes the work of specialist, but rather the work of everyone. We’ll all have it as part of our skill sets. Therefore, social media strategies will no longer exist.

Jason Falls, with a background in PR, says that social media will not only exist, but it will come under control of the people in PR. That’s because social media is about communication, and PR people are communication specialists. This, in spite the fact, as he points out, that the PR profession has been largely resistant in adopting PR.

Jim Tobin of Ignite Communications says the opposite of both Jim and Jason. Social media will continue to exist and it will be lead by social media specialists.

My own opinion is closest to Jim’s and can be summed up in a comment that Brian Solis left on Jason’s post:

“Truth is that Social Media is the responsibility of the champions that demonstrate how it will benefit the company and the brand.”

To me, that’s only common sense. Steve is right in that it will end up being dispersed but social media is too big of an animal to be a series of skillsets spread out over an organization. And specialists will still exist, just as large companies have large PR divisions and hire large PR agencies.

While it’s not that I fully disagree with Jason, but I find that I viscerally disagree that once we in the PR profession get it, we’ll control it. Most of the responses to his post that agreed with him were from people in PR. I think all of them are wrong. That’s because it won’t be their department of PR that provides the leadership, it will be THEM.

Each organization is different. Some technology companies won’t need social media coming from PR. It may be more rooted in customer service. In other cases it may be more rooted in advertising.

So I think that Jason himself and others like him will be the leaders, the ones that will be creating the strategies and methodologies of the future. Oddly, I think Jason is wrong because INDIVIDUALS like him will be the leaders within companies, regardless of what division they’re in.

Next post will be an overview of what social media is.

I just read two AdAge articles back to back.  One was “80 Billion? Online Display Advertising is Being Overhyped”.  I don’t agree with it as it seems a reactionary piece that contradicts itself.  It talks about how online display is all the rage now (which it isn’t).  And then points out how major brands still resist because they don’t see online as a branding medium.

The second was by David Armano, blogger at Logic + Emotion, who here has written “Why Digital Marketing Needs a Reboot”.  David points out how many of the early online advertising minds - the ones who looked at the traditional ad agencies with askance - are now becoming the ones that successful new media marketers roll their eyes at.  He calls them “tradigitalists”.  He says being a tradigitalist means

“using traditional marketing methods in the digital space. For example, creating an advertising campaign and “extending it digitally” usually ends up as a checklist. Micro-site? Check. Online banners? Check. Social media? Check. Mobile? Check.”

He’s right of course.  Although I’m pro micro-site and banner, too many tradigitalists stop right there.

It makes me wonder about today’s digitalists.  The ones that are adopting social media strategies.  When will they get stuck in their old methods?

I’m in the process of pitching a potential client. From what I see, if this works out, it will be an excellent opportunity. They’re a marketing service provider that offers the traditional services to their client base. The methods they use are still very much needed, they aren’t out of date, and they won’t be out of date any time soon. But in this era of digital marketing, those methodologies clearly aren’t enough. Not when the users of their clients products are more likely to look online for those very products.

That being said, there were several aspects of conversations I’ve had with potential clients that have showed me why online marketing has yet to receive the respect that it deserves. Budget allotments, questions about handling things internally, executive level buy-in, a determined need to find specific, immediate ROI.   While I realize that the whole concept of online is still emerging, I nevertheless find this somewhat amazing. Most people today have integrated the internet into their lives, and have done so for many years. In fact, most of us use it for communication, or entertainment for research. But, still, there’s that initial resistance in many people in business.  It’s not only a reluctance to not only endeavor into this no longer new arena, but to also to take the very steps to learn about it.

So I’ve put together a few reasons why I think this is the case. Each may serve as an “objection” that will need to be overcome. Whether on a one-to-one level upon pitching a potential client. Or on an industry-wide basis.

Lack of Vision

When companies can’t see beyond their basic core services, when they don’t understand - or worse, when they don’t take the time to understand industry trends, they show an alarming lack of vision. And it’s a lack of vision that could kill their business. It goes back to that “where should we be in five years?” question. They don’t understand that they have to answer it constantly.

I’ve seen decision makers in some fields effectively make choices to not learn anything new. And it’s not just because they lack an understanding that they need to change, but they never display the curiosity to learn. The very curiosity that acts as the impetus in creating a vision that will create change.

I’ve noticed this in the political arena. In between elections, I’d be attending conferences that would discuss the use of the internet in political campaigns. They’d be attended by mostly relatively young people, all of whom were politically sharp and internet savvy. Come election time, they wouldn’t get a seat at the table.  The more seasoned members would praise them as being “upcomers” and they’d describe themselves to being “out of the loop” when it comes to “all this technology stuff”, but they’d always make sure that these young people they’re supposedly impressed with be kept in the back room with a microscopic budget and no say in any formulation of strategy.

The Disconnect 

The mentality seems to be, at best, that the upcoming changes (if they’re aware of them) don’t apply to them. Somehow they feel as if they’re separate from the rest of the business world.

The mentality is “Sure I do the majority of my business correspondence via email, and I just bought a book on Amazon for my brother-in-law, and my co-worker’s now engaged to a guy she met on Match.com, and I’m planning a vacation by looking at Hotels.com, and I have to check my bank account status today online, and I’m gonna read that story in the Post that my friend forwarded to me, and I should donate online today to Obama/McCain, and ooh, here’s an Evite to go to thank event by the river, and I’ve got to update and add some photos to my Facebook page, and I should read that restaurant review online, and I’ll just go to the client website to get information, and that was an inspirations quote I was emailed today, and then there was that hilarious video on YouTube, and here at work, I need to place an order through that online catalog, and I want to check out the site for that vet that I need to take Scruffy to, and I should order a film from Netflix.”

Then they think, “But I don’t see how the internet affects my business.  It’s not tangible to what I do.”
Lack of Priority

If one thinks in terms of traditional methods, then one is going to make traditional decisions.  If online is the constant afterthought, the add-on at the end, the low priority, then it’s never going to move up.  Again, if decision makers don’t take a step back to learn and see the entire picture, then it will never happen.  Or when it finally does happen, we get…

We Can Do It Ourselves

There’s a trend in business to day to bring in every aspect of markeing communications in house. That’s quite common here in the DC area with all of the associations and tech companies. Many of these organizations turn to the “folks in IT” to create the new site that to replace the old one sorely needs an update. This is the extension of the trend of having one’s nephew create something on his spare time and then put it up on the web. The result is often marginal improvements that add nothing to the brand or user experience. And by not examining beyond the confines of the offiice walls, they never see “what’s out there”.

An extra degree of separation

I don’t know if that’s the right term for all of what I’ll explain, but I see a lot of the traditional ad agencies and PR firms - the ones that are the first ones many potential clients go to - know so little about the fundamentals of online marketing - let alone the specialty of social media - that they muck up many marketing efforts.  Flash on homepages of websites, making them slow to download and invisible to search engines.  Things like that.  Blogs that post puff pieces and reworked press releases.

The problem is that those ad agencies and PR firms have the ear of the client, first and foremost. The marketing company hasn’t taken the time to learn new strategies, technologies, and methodologie while the client doesn’t know enough about to tell the difference.  The marketing company blocks new concepts from being brought up out of their own ignorance and territorialism.  The client says, fine, you guys are the experts.

The online folks are often then one degree of separation beyond this.  All too often the ear we have is that of the marketing company who may see us as a threat.

Soon, I’ll talk about what many in the online arena do wrong.

Guess, I’m just frustrated.  In a bad mood.

There’s a neat experiment debuting tomorrow (July 28) at 12:00 from the pressroom of the Star Ledger in New Jersey. It’s called Ledger Live and its billing itself as a “new kind of news show”.

It will be a short midday segment of local news, hosted by veteran reporter Brian Donohue. The stories will be daily briefs and features. It says that they’re going to tap into the local citizen media types - bloggers, vloggers, etc. That will mean some quality control, but it’s my guess that they can pull it off if they’re diligent.

I am, however, a little skeptical of these efforts because they rely on an audience that’s not there yet. And there’s no proof that they will be. Will people care about relatively light stores? I don’t know. It will depend on how expensive it is to maintain this format.

I do think that, done right, it could easily develop that sense of community that I’ve been talking about. That’s important. I’ve seen a lot of these efforts start out all hype - mostly from idealistic citizen media evangelists - who overestimated the potential.

And I can almost see it happening here. The one comment they have is “I am so proud of you guys. You have done a GREAT job. Congrats to all. you are about to change the newspaper business forever. ”

Change the newspaper business forever? Same rhetoric I heard two years ago.

Here’s a clip: