The Holy Grail of social media continued …
Apr 11, 2008 Michael BritoLet’s see … is social media about conversions, traffic, click though rates and sales; or is it more along the lines of conversations, authenticity, transparancy and building a sense of community? I guess it really depends on who you ask. My colleague at Intel, Bob Duffy, who works on my team came up with this awesome cartoon that illustrates my point precisely (his post also touches on this subject).
In Bob’s post, he talks about being “in” the conversation versus “at” the conversation. Clearly, being “in” the conversation means participating in online discussions; and “at” the conversation could mean buying a banner ad on Techcrunch or Facebook, for example. As someone who is passionate about social media and is responsible for driving conversations about Intel, I believe both approaches are important … as long as the end result is centered around the latter, conversations.
One way to think about it is the following:
Strategy = participate/facilitate conversations and community building
Tactical = buy a banner add on Techcrunch driving traffic to those conversations.
Thoughts?
If you found value in this post please subscribe to my RSS feed and receive all of my future posts delivered straight to your inbox.
Tags: social media, conversational marketing
Posted in 
April 11th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Thanks Michael for picking this up. Now I can add syndicated cartoonist to my resume.
I agree with your assessment on strategy vs tactic and it explains why some projects go the way they go.
April 11th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
I think both have their value.
I know that I *noticed* when I saw ad support for BoingBoing from Intel's blue.popurls.com . I thought to myself, 'Wow, Intel cares about supporting the wonderful BoingBoing community.'
But I also know, that it can't be all just support in terms of $. Not at all; it has to be bigger. The conversation does indeed need to be 'in' and not 'at'.
I think this is the hardest part for marketing divisions to understand.
I mentioned the other day to Annie in response to her query on the value of company blogs, that I thought it was important to personify the brand. That is, instead of x company, it's 'Joe at x company says...' and I think this is true for social media as whole from a corporate perspective.
Building a conversation means you are inhibiting real, trustworthy, human qualities - which I think consumers, especially younger ones, are drawn to; they have no interest in and/or are distrustful of generic corporatism.
I would even ballpark quantify it at 65%-35% strategy-tactical.
(And as an aside, I would so far as to state that I think that the youth consumer - since they have become accustomed and standardized to always being connected, and always conversing with their peers (mobile phones, IM, etc.) has a subconscious expectation to be communicated with in the same way - that is in a personable, always informing, 2-way manner. This is something I'm still exploring in my head...)
Thanks for bringing up the topic Michael! And nice artistry Bob.
Great job in delineating and differentiating the two methodologies!
April 12th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
I like how you make a distinction between the two and the cartoon definitely helps. I think they both have their place: one is very scalable, while the other tries to make strong personal connections. You can't substitute one for the other.
April 12th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
I hold dear the Cluetrain mantra, "marketing are conversations," and "participation is marketing." However, I've come to believe that conversation for the sake of conversation is insufficient. Business objectives have to be met and that usually involves the bottom line somewhere. So, I've taken up with Geoff Livingston's belief that conversations must lead to engagement. And that engagement must inevitably lead to a business transaction at some point...usually sooner rather than later if the CEO has anything to say about it.
Basically, it's like what Seth Godin said years ago: "Turn strangers into friends and friends into customers." Conversations that lead to conversions, that's social media marketing from where I sit.
April 12th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Paul,
I agree that “conversations” for the sake of “conversations” are insufficient. The “Hi’s, Hello’s, How are you’s and how have you been’s” can only take you so far. And, as a direct marketer by trade, I have to agree with your assessment; as long as those conversations are relevant and authentic. Consumers can see right through marketing messages.
I believe it’s a given that authentic conversations will undoubtedly lead to brand stewards; which will then translate into a sale and/or conversion somewhere during the purchase cycle. The challenge is mapping that sale to a conversation; especially when you work with an ingredient brand like Intel.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:33 am
This is the crux is LOTS of client meetings over the last several months. The fundamental difference between participating in a conversation (adding value . . .) versus putting up a banner in the room where people are talking.
The first it much harder - but there will be a payoff.
(And NICE cartoon!)
TO'B
April 14th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
I love the IN vs. At...I believe that if you are IN, you are not thought of as "pitchy" or trying to sell me something...because there are many of "yous" trying tell sell something AT me...and I don't buy IT (your product or your trust).
I believe those that are IN the conversation, are more trust worthy.
If you in the conversation because your New Media Director told you to be and you are pitching the "AT", go back for more education...you don't get IT yet.
April 15th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
@Tom - there seems to be a lot of discussion about this even internally in companies. One one side, there are the social media purists who believe that no marketing should be in social media. And on the other side there are those who are spending serious coin buying banners though Federated.
As Daniel suggested above, both are important but I would place wayyyyy more emphasis on the conversational element.
@Jen
Thank you so much for stopping by. I am LMAO @ your comment.
April 16th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Hi Michael,
Good conversation going on here in the comments. I commented as well on Bob's original post and I really like the "at" versus "in" comparison.
Being at a conversation is non-participating, like a fly on the wall. Yes, someone might notice the fly and so it has its place. Only by being "in" the conversation can we truly participate, build relationships and build trust. The dangerous part is when companies believe that placing ads (even ads that target conversations) is somehow an effective substitute for being part of a conversation.
There is also a personal commitment factor that goes along with being in a conversation (instead of just "at" it). You are putting yourself out there (your ideas, your reputation, etc..), and that demonstrates a certain level of personal investment which also works to build trust & show commitment.
April 30th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Cool. That's what people need to understand is that brand ambassadors are more effective than marketing staff can be. Walking the walk!
-M
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:10 am
Very interesting subject!