Is Skepticism Rising?
Over the past month or so, I've noticed that advertising commentators and practitioners alike are starting to get a bit weary of the social media bandwagon.
Not to the point where it's being dismissed, but it seems like people are starting to finally question the validity of all the end-of-the-rainbow statements we've been hearing about Facebook, Twitter, etc.
I'm not going to lie: I love the major social media innovations in recent years, but the noise level surrounding them has been ludicrous. Many of the principles embedded in the bull's rush to SM are sound: enhanced communication, greater transparency, a more personal and flexible approach, etc.
But the fact is, it's not the be-all-end-all it's been made out to be, and I think that note of discord's been picking up in recent weeks.
On Monday, Malcolm Gladwell posted his piece which went to the other extreme, that social media has no hope of ever becoming the agent for social change it claims to be (link). As well, I wrote my own piece on it a few weeks ago, pointing to a bunch of articles I found all over the place from people starting to question things here and there (link). It's not exactly a landslide of objectivity, but I feel like there's been a slight shift in the winds. But maybe I'm totally off base.
Thoughts?
Not to the point where it's being dismissed, but it seems like people are starting to finally question the validity of all the end-of-the-rainbow statements we've been hearing about Facebook, Twitter, etc.
I'm not going to lie: I love the major social media innovations in recent years, but the noise level surrounding them has been ludicrous. Many of the principles embedded in the bull's rush to SM are sound: enhanced communication, greater transparency, a more personal and flexible approach, etc.
But the fact is, it's not the be-all-end-all it's been made out to be, and I think that note of discord's been picking up in recent weeks.
On Monday, Malcolm Gladwell posted his piece which went to the other extreme, that social media has no hope of ever becoming the agent for social change it claims to be (link). As well, I wrote my own piece on it a few weeks ago, pointing to a bunch of articles I found all over the place from people starting to question things here and there (link). It's not exactly a landslide of objectivity, but I feel like there's been a slight shift in the winds. But maybe I'm totally off base.
Thoughts?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Marcus Fox on -
I've also noticed that many are questioning the results of social. But everything is so fast moving and I think it is very difficult to gain a wider understanding by people not early adopters or those with the inside track.
-
Permalink Reply by Bob Knorpp on -
I've written several blog posts recently on this subject. I don't want to be self-serving, so just search "social media" if you want to find them.
But my basic premise right now is social media is only a media, not a tactic. All the crowing about social to this point is couched in tactical executions and strategic rules as if it were a discipline unto itself. But it isn't. It's just a media. It has different rules about how to market on it, but that's where the limitations end. We can brand advertise, direct market, do PR...what have you. We just have to play by the rules of engagement built into the medium, which is permission and relationship.
My analogy is TV. We don't say "TV marketing." We advertise, we do direct spots, we get our product placed on the Today Show, we spin our client's story in interviews, but we don't TV market. We do what we're good at and own the media as best as we can, without being owned by the media.
So to sum up, I totally believe that social networks offer great opportunities for marketers, Gladwell's opinion not withstanding. But clearly the ideal being espoused of relationship and buzz alone is only part of the picture and leaves a lot of opportunity on the table.
Bob
© 2012 Created by Bob Knorpp.
Powered by
ac75538efd9142399fadbd0e474ea353