Stats on the benefits of social media marketing: How useful?
Yesterday, I saw the following table from eMarketer on Mashable:
It was part of Adam Ostrow’s post “Data: What are the benefits of social media markeing?”. While surveys like this often provide interesting information, they also often create a sense of “great news” where it doesn’t necessarily exist.
The first thing that stands out to me is that, although many in social media talk of its great cost savings, only 51% of marketers describe this as a benefit. Essentially half don’t see it that way. Is that because social media strategists are failing to make their case? Or is it simply not true that there are universal cost savings?
Ernesto Glueksmann of Infamia Global Technologies points out that this stat may actually be detrimental to the cause of social media consultants who are trying to get clients and potential clients to understand how they can save on costs.
Only 21.2% say social media is a great lead generation source. That means that almost 80% don’t feel that way. Why is that? Again, because we’re not making the case? Or is it because companies find it as an ineffective means to get new customers?
Those two attributes are extremely important to companies when it comes to allocating marketing funds during a recession. ROI is the operative word. What benefits us NOW. And how can we do it at a low cost. Underestimate that and you’ll be out of business.
A third concern I have with the chart it that the top four results all have to do with customer insight, but deal last at 17.5% is customer service. Does this mean that companies are failing to take that feedback and turn it into action? Are companies not set up for fulfillment? Or do they not care?
This whole chart shows me that there’s a lot of untapped potential in social media, but it also shows me that that potential is elusive. We can’t rely on our own presumptions and pontifications if our clients and potential clients can relate to what we’re saying.
Alan Edgett, who also added an insightful comment, talks of the difference between “doers” and “experts”. While I’m not necessarily going to denounce “experts” (I don’t consider myself to be one), I think it’s incumbent upon those of us in online marketing to read between the lines of studies and stats to better serve our clients and become actual “doers”.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=f5182205-89f2-472e-bcd1-beb65bd89d9c)
December 31st, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Jonathan,
I “appropriated” some of your content for my blog, but this posting is not only fascinating, but extraordinarily well-cited. Every time I visit your blog I learn something new.
I have a couple of comments on what you found:
- the 51 percent who describe it as a benefit reflect the 49 percent who are either scared of it or simply don’t know what it is. I think that this is the one statistic that you will see go up dramatically each year for those who see it as beneficial.
- About lead generation: I have found a reluctance among the “social media” people to accept marketing; look at what happened to Chris Brogan and the Dad-o-matic thing. I happened to think that this was a minor infraction, but the very thought that a social media “A- Lister” could be compensated seemed to get many people up in arms.
- Finally, I’ll quote Shel Holtz on the ROI thing. While social media marketing is WAY lower for cost-per-contact or cost-per-customer-acquired, there are many things that you cannot measure - and that gives the naysayers a chance to kill initiatives. What Shel said (during a Ragan panel) was that no one ever questions the cost of having a company pay for membership at a golf club or country club. No one ever calculates greens fees vs. cost-per acquisition. It’s social engagement and marketing and well as relationship building - just like social media. So the next time that someone throws out the “ROI” question, bring up the greens fees.
Keep up the great work - and happy new year.
Mark
December 31st, 2008 at 3:06 pm
I’ve always been leery of the low-cost argument. From the perspective of companies just entering the space: they have to either hire someone (or multiple someones) who know what they are doing (if they don’t have internal capabilities, and even if they do, where does that person/people’s work get shifted to?), or they have to hire an agency of some sort to do it for them. God help them if they agree to billable hours in that case, because social media takes time to do right. And time is money. Over and over we hear about how low-cost social media is, and it really isn’t if it’s done correctly.
That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done…I think it’s here to stay and most businesses (but not all) can benefit from engaging online. But calling it low cost is only looking at one dimension of cost, that of direct cost, not time commitment and/or dedicated staff. My guess is that businesses look at all aspects of the commitment involved and that it’s more realistic to see only half see it as such. I think over time that number might actually drop, not increase. The other numbers on the chart: customer engagement, feedback response, etc. demonstrate that they realize social media is worth doing.
Thanks for posting, very interesting! And, thanks to Mark Story for pointing it out to me…
Jen
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:04 am
The old method of advertising is interactive marketing. The term is misleading. Most people think it means that there is some type of interaction on the part of the person advertised to, and there is. But, it is not conversational. Instead, the advertiser wants you to interact with their campaign in a specific set of steps. Following the call to action and visiting a website for instance. It’s the push to make you do something. Live this image. Buy this now.
Social Media Marketing is just the opposite. It’s the pull of the tribe. The tribe already has your trust so the actions they take are ones you align with. On a larger scale, it’s the allure of belonging in the group as you take action together. “I am doing this so why don’t you do it with me?” On an individual level, the attraction is to behave the same way to get the same results that benefits your fellow tribeswoman or tribesman. “She looks hot! I want to look hot too. I want to go to her hairstylist” and you do. Social Media Marketing uses the power of attraction.
While advertising tries to use the same tactic, with a billboard for instance, of a gorgeous woman telling you the benefits of the salon, it doesn’t have the same impact because it’s pushing you to go. It is not pulling you in as a trusted friend. Your friends have your best interests at heart and advertisers do not. Social Media Marketing is based on building trust and that foundation will make Social Media a dominant player in Marketing.
January 4th, 2009 at 12:45 am
@Mark
Many thanks for the kind words.
I’m not fully sure that social media is lower cost for all, but in the cases that it is lower cost, it’s my belief that the differences are substantial.
You’re quite correct in your supposition that people will look for reasons to object to social media implementation, yet they’ll give the thumbs up to greens fees. It’s politically correct to do so, at least business wise.
@Jen You make some excellent points and it’s something that those of us that are involved on online marketing should be aware of when we approach our clients.