Comments on: More is Better. Or Not.

By: Leigh Rubio

Leigh Rubio — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:45:59 +0000

So true. It’ll be interesting to see where platforms/tools like Twitter are in a few years. Who cares if you have thousands of people following you, if there’s so much noise going on that they don’t even read or care about the updates?

By: Steve Woodruff

Steve Woodruff — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 19:13:44 +0000

Elaine,
My hope is that a lot of those practices will go by the boards in time. I’d love to see serious reform his lobbyists and lawyers and politicians while we’re at it…

By: Elaine Fogel

Elaine Fogel — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 03:55:03 +0000

Agreed, Steve. However, if I can jump back to your comment on pharma…
Do you think the cost of drugs would be more reasonable if pharma reps weren’t paying for entire medical office lunches each day of the week? Just asking.

By: Steve Woodruff

Steve Woodruff — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 18:07:41 +0000

@john – dead on. The opt-in aspect helps considerably. And the cream does rise to the top – the R&F exploiters will, I hope, just become a layer of sludge at the bottom of the tank!

By: John McTigue

John McTigue — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 12:31:39 +0000

It’s certainly true that social media is being exploited by a variety of parties to reach as many potential “buyers” as possible. I continue to be annoyed by all the affiliate marketers and their get-rich schemes, but I do have a choice. I don’t have to follow their tweets, connect with them or befriend them, so there is that degree of control by each of us. Instead of trying to somehow contain or limit the R & F factor, we should focus on providing good, helpful content. Then it doesn’t matter how big the reach becomes, because it’s all good. I think consumers are catching on to this, and like me, they’re becoming selective in the channels they listen to. There will always be noise, but if we focus on the signal, social media will only grow in value.

By: Lewis Green

Lewis Green — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:16:28 +0000

Steve,
You are right on target. I haven’t been a “reach” advocate for two decades. It isn’t about numbers nor frequency of communications. It is about the “right” numbers and quality communications that reach people where and how that want to be reached. Thanks for your smart post.

By: Steve Woodruff

Steve Woodruff — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:05:54 +0000

I think the big challenge will be filtering technologies and more sophisticated settings that will allow us to minimize the R&F “noise”, and focus on the valuable “signal”. It’ll happen. Meantime, we just have to keep setting a good example and building valuable networks…

By: Tom Martin

Tom Martin — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:34:21 +0000

Steve
Couldn’t agree more. Companies should focus on impacts not impressions. They’d see more success and spend fewer dollars IMHO.
@TomMartin

By: Beth Harte

Beth Harte — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:00:00 +0000

Steve, I totally agree with you and C.B., it’s about the long-haul. Way back when, 1-to-1 marketing was all the buzz, but it was more about using a CRM system auspiciously while throwing in some variable printed direct mail (“Hi Jim…here’s our stuff”). [I know there's more to it than that, but we don't have all day...]
Reach and frequency don’t work when the doors are shut. And they can’t be pushed open…but maybe, just maybe they can be slightly pulled open with some sincere conversation.

By: C.B. Whittemore

C.B. Whittemore — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:16:16 +0000

Steve, I’m definitely in for the long haul!
Your post makes interesting points about these new tools, ones that I’ve been grappling with.
How does a tool like Twitter continue to offer value when R&F clutter the communications? It will have to evolve so users can benefit from relevance. Otherwise, the meaningful conversations will migrate elsewhere.
Methinks the long haul will be very interesting indeed!