In my last post, I discussed the points that Qorvis’ Doug Poretz has raised regarding what he sees at two of the three major flaws of the marketing communications industry.  One was the fee and billing structure where clients pay more for hours billed than the value that actually comes from the work.  The other was the way services are divided into practice areas which, while serving a purpose, all too often become siloed.

And now he sees a new flaw.  A third fundamental flaw.  And this flaw is:

“The over-exaggeration of the importance of new media”.

That’s pretty strong stuff.  He’s got 40 years in the business of communication.  He’s no novice.  By fundamental, he means something that is at the very foundation of the industry.  It’s not just an “exaggeration” it’s and “over-exaggeration”.  And he now sees it as being  widespread.    He says that the communications industry has been seduced by “new media gurus” who have pushed the importance of “new media tools” to the extent that the industry as a whole fallen for this flaw -  with the supposed magnitude of its importance - just as it accepted billing structures and practice offerings.

Now he DOES give “new media” credit for changing the way communications is executed. But even there, he mistakenly positions “new media” as “tools”.

“But first, let’s give social, interactive, digital and other forms of new media their due:  they have changed, and will continue to change the way communications is executed from now on.  Granted 100%.  New Media is changing communications the same way the power drill changed the furniture industry:  wonderful and new tools that absolutely should be understood and fully exploited.  But they are tools, not fundamentals that should redefine the industry.”

I believe he’s wrong.  I believe that he can’t see the forest for the trees.  His defining of “new media” - what I’m going to call “social media” as being merely “tools” shows me this.  This may be because he recently spent three months listening to “new media douchebags” telling him things like how many words should be in each blog post or how wide the text should be on his blog.  (That last link leads to great video on YouTube.)  But I believe he views social media strictly from the eyes of the agency/client, and fails to include what is not the most significant part - the communities of individuals that are playing the largest role in social media.  As a whole, we’re increasingly spending a larger portion of their media engagement experience online - close to 30% according to eMarketer.  Important point here:  online is interactive and dynamic, not broadcast and static.  the game is changing. That’s not hype. That’s reality.

Before I go on, I will say that I share Doug’s sentiment that there’s a slew of social media advocates out there that DO exaggerate the hell out of the effectiveness of many of the tools that social media offers.  And there are some that treat social media as the only viable means of communication in the future.  I’ve complained and written about this, challenging what I guess he call “new media gurus”.  Here and here.  Traditional marketing strategies can still work, not everyone reads blogs, Twitter doesn’t have a business model, and I’m sick of getting poked on Facebook.  The past few years have given us a sizable amount of relatively new people in the field of marketing communications telling us that everything has changed and if you disagree then you’re an idiot.  Doug Poretz is no idiot.

I could go on and on about that.  In fact, I’m getting myself worked up about it with this long rant.  But that’s not what this blog post is about.

So now I’ll lay out my case how social media as a whole is not “over-exaggerated”, not a “tool”, and how the current adoption and acceptance is not a “flaw”.

The Industry Hasn’t Fallen for the Hype

As far as the “industry” falling for the hype, I have to say that that is just not so.  I continually run into PR professionals who, say, view the blogosphere as yet another channel to push packaged message to. Or ad agency types who view social networks such as Facebook solely as a one way delivery system for the marketing message.  I continue to meet seasoned PR and ad agency types who have yet to hear of, yet alone use most of the most commonly well known “tools” of social media.  Simply put, the adoption isn’t there.

In fact, if there is any flaw, it is often how it is used by the industry as opposed to the level of importance prescribed to it.  As I’ve pointed out many times before, Forrester’s finding that corporate blogs are not trusted because they’re overly promotional and that social network campaigns falter for the same reason are two signs that social media is being used wrong.

Social Media is Not a Tool

For the purposes of definitions, I’ll define social media in this manner.  The “media” part means to me that it’s a platform for communication.  And the media primarily takes place in the digital area.  The “social” part means that it can be created, shared, altered, forwarded, and interacted by those who are involved with it.

So social media is not a tool.  Social media is a new model of communication.  It is experienced in a shared environment by its stakeholders.  Those that experience it do so in almost a tribal fashion via thier networks.  Marketers still play a key role, but they are not there to simply deliver carefully crafted messages.

Brand Message Control

He argues, with some justification, that the future of marketing communications will tied to creating content:

While being seduced by a hype, the industry is also missing a much more significant revolution: as journalism dies or morphs into some sort of neo-journalism, those businesses that currently define themselves as advertising or PR or event or digital or whatever agencies will need to morph into content providers without any bias to any particular distribution channel(s).

As that happens, the most important value communications firms will provide will relate less to how a message gets to an audience, and more to whether the content being provided is of such value that it can compete successfully for the time and attention of the people you want to reach.  Only if and when that can be answered “yes,” will the issues of which channels should be used and how the message should be packaged become important and critical questions.  But they aren’t the priority questions.

OK.  Fair enough.  Content creation will be key.  Distribution will be paramount. But social media is not just about packaged messages and channels.  That’s what make social media different, and that’s why it’s changing the foundation of marketing communications.

Messages can still be created but via social media they are more offered than delivered.  And they are often offered through participation.  The means of offering may start with a channel, but that channel soon morphs into networks.  Networks of tribes that perhaps place value on the message, and may even accept and appreciate the packaging…but once they receive the message, the message becomes theirs.  They own this segment of the marketing communications process.  They are in control.  And the quality of the “content” created by the marketing agency is less important than the perceptions that the “target market” - again, the networked tribe - has on the quality of the product or service offered, regardless of whether they are acting as individuals or as members of a loosely formed community.

That is how social media works.  The change is fundamental.  It’s derivative from human nature.

Participation is a Message

As Chris Brogan points out, participation starts by listening.  Conversations are going in social media about brands.  That’s why listening to conversations regarding your company, your products, your services, your brand.  Listening is not a tool.  It is a process.

The “listeners” - agencies and clients alike listen to learn.  They learn about what their current and potential customers think about the brand, the competition, the industry.

Then, after carefully evaluating what was learned, participation then involves engagement.  Engagement doesn’t necessarily include marketing.  Yet effective engagement can serve a marketing purpose.  It involves respect.  And it most certainly doesn’t involve canned statements.  Engagement is not a tool.  It is a process.

By participating is social media in this way, the company can become part of the ecosystem that their customers exist.  The company needs to be authentic and transparent and they can’t concentrate on continually selling its message.  This creates respect.

It should be noted that this is one aspect of social media - a very large and important one - but it does not encompass the entirety of social media.  Participation, by itself, is not in my opinion, enough to serve as a marketing strategy.  I’m sure there will be plenty of exceptions, but it doesn’t replace traditional marketing.  Used correctly, it enhances it.

Distribution is networked based

Blogs.  Twitter.  Online forums.  Review sites such as Yelp.  That’s how many of us get information on products and services that we’re considering buying.  That’s crowdsourcing.  Online conversations are the new form of talking over the backfence.  That’s why companies have to be more authentic.  Any hint of canned hype is looked upon with derision.  And that derision can spread fast.  Many marketers don’t get that.  If the network is the marketplace, then you need to work within the guidelines of the marketplace.

The networks give its participants greater access to the information they need when deciding to take some sort of action…buying a car, going to a restaurant, choosing which babyfood might be best for an infant witha certain medical decision.

That’s another reason why the networks aren’t just a means of channel distribution of marketing messages.  As I mentioned, they’ve participitory and educational vehicles as well.

With online, we also must remember that what’s online can be online forever.  The original video of the two idiots from Dominos is long gone - after 900,000 people saw it.  But you can still see it as others copied it and uploaded for their own purposes.  The point is, marketers and PR people will need to learn how to deal with negative content.  Canned respones won’t be enough.

Cost Structure is Different

Take Bear Silber, the 26 year old pizza parlor owner who’s using social media to promote his restaurant.  He’s developed a large following on both Facebook and Twitter.  They are now effectively his mailing list.  Now he still uses traditional methods - he’d be a fool if he didn’t.  But much of his marketing philiosphy can be summed up in this quote: “Immediately when I have a promotional idea, I can tweet it.”

Notice that this goes against the grain that many social media types are declaring:  it’s promotional.  So what?  It’s successful because it’s openly authentic and transparent.  People have signed up to get these announcements.  And it’s not overdone.

His cost for sending out that tweet:  $0.

Many of the tools that social media offers reduce what’s required for an overall marketing budget.  It changes the game in that sense.

I’m seeing some entrepreneurs (albiet, mostly in the technology business) become engaged in topical blogs via comments and discussions.  They will then start their own blogs.  By the time they launch, they will have connections with prominent bloggers and colleagues and potential customers.  It doens’t eliminate the need for a marketing budget, but it can reduce the budgetary needs.  That’s because social media was used to connect with the right people.

From my perspective, social media has changed the foundations of the marketing communications industries.  It’s more than a tool and at its base, it isn’t hype.  While social media has more than it’s share of hype artists who know little beyond marketing communications than what goes on outside of their computer and cell phone screens, it’s a mistake to underestimate what its potential is and how it will affect our future.