Last December I wrote a significant post on entitled “The Coming Problem of Diversity”. It acted as a direct inspiration for my Age of Conversation article. Both called upon those of us in digital marketing in general and in social media marketing in particular to take a look at the what the users and participants of online media are actually about. What make them tick. What values they have. How they want digital to play a role in their lives. I point out that those of us on the marketing/consulting/agency side aren’t a very diverse lot, just as advertising as a whole is mostly homogeneous. We can getunintentionally self-absorbed and think that those of us that are like us are the only ones that really get it.There was also a second point that I made in those pieces that I want to reiterate. It follows:
It’s imperative that we in social media seek to understand the diverse world that we’ll be looking to engage. It’s imperative that we realize that many of those that we see as “not getting it” will end up “getting it” on their own terms and in ways that will reflect their own cultural experiences. And it’s all the more important if we’re correct in our assertions that this is how we’ll be receiving our marketing messages, our news…the information that we need to live by.
One their own terms. If there is any principle those of us in social media marketing must know is that when we are engaging customer, clients, and consumers, both potential and real, is that they are much more likely to respond positively if we interact with them on their own terms. That means in ways they can relate to, in ways they appreciate, in ways that they understand.
This of course has two applications. The first is pertains to the chosen method of engagement by the marketer. It’s usually the wrong way of engaging. Earlier this year, Forrester concluded that 16 out of 17 community building attempts on Facebook didn’t pass the muster because, as Ben Wothen or the Wall Street Journal points out:
One of the hot investments for businesses these days is online communities that help customers feel connected to a brand. But most of these efforts produce fancy Web sites that few people ever visit. The problem: Businesses are focusing on the value an online community can provide to themselves, not the community.
There it is. Right there. Too focused on themselves and not the community. This may not have been the case with all sixteen, but it’s the main problem overall.I’m guessing that companies, in their attempts to implement a community style marketing campaign, are faltering because they are too focused in bringing the visitor (and potential community member) to the product website as opposed to actually fostering community development. Hence, a community never really develops in this community development effort. It’s not a criticism of interactive marketing…it’s a observation that marketers are too interactive marketing focused in their community marketing efforts.Many in marketing say they understand this, but when push comes to shove, they don’t live it. The urge to push messages takes over. From brand managers, to top PR people, to ad media buyers, to social media strategists. While this can be understandable as the pressure for results coming from the people who pay our fees and salaries aren’t often willing to wait, it’s not going to change how people are going to be successfully marketed to.I have no problem with the word “target” by the way. It seems some in social media feel so sensitive about dealing with these issues that they forget that, with marketing, we have one or two goals: move product or position a product. And people of similar demographic/social/cultural/economic backgrounds often display similar attributes. Again – my point up above is that many of us in marketing as a whole aren’t that diverse and assume that either 1) everyone sorta thinks like me; or 2) those who aren’t like me don’t “get it” which means we have to speak more slowly to them. The concept of targeting is not inherently the problem.The problem I have is with the approach. How we approach a target. To often, we apply the traditional methods of push marketing in our efforts. There’s a time and place for push marketing. Even online. Even on social networks. I’ve yet to see any convincing arguments against the idea of small banner ads on personal profiles.But that’s not engagement. That’s not meant to be engagement. Engagement shows the capacity to listen and learn. To be patient and then provoke. To inspire, then involve.Sounds like horseshit?Well, let’s go back to Facebook and take a look at silly and sleazy concepts such as the original version of Facebook Beacon. It created what I called “Usurp Marketing”, where it seized purchasing information of customers without their knowledge or permission, in order to promote the advertising entities. Forced engagement where, they essentially forced an individual to become an marketing piece, and then forced that marketing piece on others. The outcry was immediate and loud. Facebook backed off.In both cases, those on the side of marketing, the marketers and the publishers, continually put their needs first. Often their immediate needs.This brings me to the second application, which is how well the marketer can relate to the individual and, in turn, the individual can relate to the marketer. From what I see, not very well.Many of the procedures used in offline PR are simply transferred online. For blogger relations, we’re often forced to connect with bloggers that we haven’t been following because there are a limitless amount to follow. We create our messaging themes and written intelligently, we then make appeals to bloggers. But if we don’t try to see the world from the specific blogger’s viewpoint, we risk coming across as insincere.The ones that seemingly get hit up the most are mommy bloggers. Semi well-known mommy bloggers are getting hit all the time by non-moms (or non-parents) via pitches that show complete ignorance toward the blogger. It’s the same thing reporters complain about. PR people calling to promote something that’s not part of what they cover or something that they just covered.This brings me back to that conference that I spoke at in San Francisco back in early ‘05. Four hundred people in attendance, all thinking that they were the future of communication, and not one of them (at least from what I could see) was black.I used to think it was pure coincidence – but great strategy – that Barack Obama became president due in part to his social media strategy. That is, a coincidence regarding my observations about the lack of racial diversity at the conference. But now I’m realizing that we’ve no just elected the nation’s first African American president in part, because Obama’s social media strategy positioned the candidate as someone who can relate to so many people’s problems. One on one, or close to that as possible. Then bonding like minded people together to further his candidacy. The Obama people let the candidate talk big themes, but then, via social media talked to people on, you guessed it, their terms, relegating the concept of race as being unimportant to those who otherwise would have been uncomfortable voting for a black man. In fact, I heard interviews with people who said that they were first reluctant to vote for a black right up until the financial crisis hit. I’d say that while McCain’s being tied into the Republican party hurt him deeply, Obama’s personal appeal, forged in great part by social media outreach and interaction, created an atmosphere about the man that drew people in and away from their inherent racism. Note: I’m talking specifically about those who had considered voting against Obama for racial reasons.I think it’s going to be a while 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 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…but rather create their own valuable conversations, and/or underwrite organic conversations that contextually make sense for that brand to support.
Excellent points. Again, on their terms. Sounds like a plan.
{ 0 comments… add one now }