How do we know social media is for real? Because the various marketing disciplines are locked in a critically important tug-of-war that will decide who owns it. This fight will be a central component of boardroom discussions, conference keynotes, and merger activity in 2009.
While it’s true that optimal social media requires the cooperation of multiple disciplines, that’s not the way the business of marketing works. When new tactics emerge, the purveyors of the historic methods circle, dodge, and proclaim that their experience best positions them to manufacture this new elixir. It happened with radio. It happened with Web sites. It happened (and is still ongoing) with regard to SEO and email. Social media is the new battleground.
The four combatants each have reasonable claims to social media ownership.
Advertising
Because social media often requires making stuff, and can impact overall brand perception, advertising should be in charge of social media. The rising importance of video within social media also favors advertising types.
Digital
Because social media is (at least for now) an online construct, the Internet marketing agencies should be in the driver’s seat. Plus, social media has major SEO implications in some cases, and most SEO is still handled by digital specialists.
Public Relations
Because social media is ultimately about conversations, and is non-linear, public relations is best equipped to manage social media efforts. Especially so given the demise of traditional journalism, the importance of blogger relations, and the blurring of the lines between customer and reporter.
Client
Because social media is ideally an extension and manifestation of the brand’s operations and culture, and requires near-constant vigilance and engagement, the client is best able to oversee social media. Comcast is a good example of this philosophy.
There is also a surge of social media firms like Brains on Fire and Crayon. While there is a place for these specialists, they won’t be the norm. There is too much at stake this time, and advertising is just now recovering from the industry-wide hubris that caused them to largely miss the digital wave, giving rise to hundreds of digital agencies. They won’t repeat that blunder.
The outcome of this struggle hinges on a single factor. Will social media become viewed as a tactical or strategic component? Of course, it will be both in practice, but in 2009 our shared understanding of what social media is and how it works will swell considerably. And within that accepted norm will be placement of social media in the strategic (advertising), or tactical (digital) bucket.
As I’ve written here before, I’m a proponent of social media strategy and elevating the conversation beyond whether Wikipedia or Knol is a better platform. I very much hope the social media “industry” tilts in that direction. If it does, public relations is best able to lead the social media charge. They straddle the line between strategic and tactical currently, they are hungry to take on the social media assignment, and their background in content creation and conversation is well-suited.
No question that public relations has a long way to go before they have social media conquered. At present, way too many clumsy blogger pitches and not enough digital savvy. But I think they can and will get there. In the social media tug-of-war, I’m pulling on the rope of PR.
How about you?
(photo by futureshape)
Related posts:
- The Power of Social Media meets the Press Release
- The Role of PR in Social Media: A Podcast with Doug Haslam and Shel Holtz
- Strategies In The 2010 Social Media Marketing Ecosystem
- Integrating Social Media with Marketing and PR
- Storytelling: The Key to Making Social Media Work
Tags: Social Media, social media marketing, social media services, social media strategy
Thanks for the mention about Brains on Fire, Jason. I feel like I need to point out a few things:
1) We don’t claim to be a social media firm. We create movements. And social media is a tool that we use to that end. We reframe the conversation, build an identity around it and then find the tools people need to be empowered and pass on the word. We concentrate more on that 92% of WOM that happens OFFline. The online stuff is the given these days – it’s just a matter of finding out what tools people will actually use instead of creating more noise.
2) Brains on Fire has been around since 1998.
3) There are so many folks out there preaching how great social media is and so few of them are actually practicing it or have experience. My favorite are the agencies pushing their clients to start Twitter accounts or blogs and haven’t updated their own blog in months!
IMO, social media is the flavor of the month. There are waaaaaay too many people on Twitter and Facebook (talking to themselves) who think it’s the be-all, end-all. It’s a great tool. But it’s just a tool. It’s not the answer. And it can easily become part of the problem. It’s not going to go away, but the smart companies are the ones that yes, it’s a tool to connect but see beyond the connection. They are thinking about how now they have a conversation going, but what’s next?
Great post. And thanks for grouping us with Crayon. I’ve never thought as them as competitors but we respect their work!
Very interesting.
I agree with you that PR has the best chance to win, with the client a close second. I liken the case for clients to organizations hiring graphic designers. It used to be that most graphic work was outsourced to an agency or freelancer. Now most organizations have that talent in-house. I see the same thing for social media. Once it becomes more mainstream in the corporate world than it is today, I think most companies will go about it in their own way.
Jason — The entity that will “win” in social media is going to be unique in every situation. The first group to show measurable success in the space will be in the driver’s seat.
Skill set is more inportant than the name on the door. I think each agency has the opportunity to grow into each others traditionally held work. PR agencies dabble in marketing, ad agencies dabble in PR, digital agencies dabble in ad and PR. Ad and PR firms see digital is the future and all have started reacting to maintain relevance (as least you would hope they would).
That said, I moved from a digital shop to a PR agency because of the nature of conversations. It is, however, different from agency to agency. Some get it, some don’t. No matter what, measurement is the key.
Companies just don’t know a lot about social media. They seem to think they know a bunch about social media but they are failing at every aspect of it.
@spike – As you know (since I keep citing you and talk about you in every speech I give), I have huge man love for you and your firm. Sincere apologies for the pigeon hole. Wasn’t meant to slight you guys in any way, just trying to juxtapose what you do versus “traditional” advertising, PR, digital.
I agree that “social media” is a disservice, at best. I prefer Jaffe’s “conversation” analogy, and I’ve written a lot about my perceived difference between “social media” (creating movements) and “social media marketing” (marketing using social media tools).
@kyle – I agree that the client is going to have a lot to say about this. In fact, if social media “really” takes off, it may be integrated so much in operations, etc. that no vendor can handle it.
@matt – Great point. Whomever can prove success will have the inside track. Additionally, I believe those that can successfully position social media (or whatever) as an ONGOING discipline, not a project, will win.
@blogguide – I disagree. There are many examples of companies transforming their brands using social media and authentic, 2-way conversations. I won’t beat my own chest in that regard, but Spike and Brains on Fire have great case studies, as to hundreds of others. However, in the grand scheme of the corporate universe, we are in the infancy stage, no question.
Jason
Great post and a worthy discussion. Not sure I agree with you that PR will win. While there are great PR shops that are very digital, the vast majority are old school traditionalists that haven’t yet gotten on the SM bandwagon nor do they fully understand it.
Client won’t lead it because they are by in large stretched too thin to have the time to invest to gain enough understanding of SM to sell it up the chain in corp America.
My vote is actually for an option not on your list — technologically savvy account management types from ad agencies. Two reasons. First, they are generalists that understand how to deploy PR/Digital/Advertising to solve their client’s business problems. And SM is really a little bit of each of those domains. Second, the good ones have the client’s ear and respect. So they are supremely positioned to sell through SM to the client and the client’s bosses.
So they’ll “own” SM and manage SM strategists and executioners on their staffs.
@brandmarken
No offense taken at all, J. And thanks for the sweet, sweet man love. It’s mutual.
I think advertising is and will continue to be the catalyst for social media. You can take Pandora as an example. They have an amazing product, but they’ve threatened to shut down their own service because their unable to monetize it effectively.
In the end, almost all social media applications are for profit and the advertising model is quickly overtaking the subscription model. If advertisers can’t get a return or site owners can’t effectively monetize their social media content, funding for those websites will quickly dry up and their existence will be short lived.
However, there are some great strategies out there for generating significant revenue and growing a customer base through social media. I think advertising has won the battle for now and should continue to do so in my opinion, driving the evolution of social media forward.
A very thought-provoking post on Social Media & where it “lives” within a company / organization. I think it needs to be an initial “all-hands on deck, let’s discuss this thing,” at the beginning, as it truly touches on aspects of each department. Luckily, at many companies, Adv, PR, Mktg, Web are under one division – whatever its actual name is. Then decide which department will handle SM, and appoint one member from each other department to be a team member. See how it shapes up, and shakes out in 3 months.
We have seen some viral ads go badly – Motrin Moms for example. Social media requires a softer approach than most advertising depts. traditionally employ, so it may not be the safest choice; but it is truly a decision each company needs to make according to its own makeup.
Whoever DOES get the “Social Media Gig,” needs to listen, learn best practices, monitor results on the social media sites, and be adaptable.
It might be not which Department gets to wear the social media hat, but which Individual in the company best fits the SM hat. And who can work with outside consultants, and balance their advice, with the company’s needs and image, and still keep that Social Media hat firmly on his or her head.
Hi Jason!
Very interesting article and comments. As someone who is new to SM, I just read an article this morning in the January issue of PRSA’s Tactics entitled “Social Media Programs: Cultivate, don’t control.” Tried to find an online link but don’t see it yet. Written by Ed Schipul of brandtobedetermined.com, the article first mentions the turf battle between PR and marketing. Schipul compares the PR practitioner to a conductor whose job it is to prepare and execute a symphony. But he says social media requires a different type of mind-set and that PR practitioners need to think like improvisational jazz musicians. Anyhow, it is an interesting article on page 12 if you get Tactics…sorry I can’t locate it. Could just be for PRSA members and they will post it in February.
Great post and conversation. I think many ad agencies saw this social media explosion and the biggies acquired the smaller SM companies in order to expand their internal offerings. So, maybe the prinicpals or account execs aren’t fully familiar with SM, these new team members are there to guide them and their clients. They’ll want to maintain market share and discourage clients from using other vendors. In a way, it makes sense so the account can be fully brand managed.
The PR practioners are still trying to catch up with blogging and other Web 2.0 stuff. It’s a whole new ballgame when the info isn’t just outgoing any more. The good companies will know their stuff and use an integrated approach for their clients.
What this really underscores is that marketing is getting so extensive and broad that we really need specialists to do what generalists could get away with before. This will likely encourage more collaboration between specialty agencies.
What struggle?
500 million consumers have already made the decision.
If you are not in front of them gvng them what they want, you will find out fast.
Steven Stearns
Anyone.Anywhere.Anything.
Experienced Social Network Building
Content Creation For Commerce, Creatives and Citizens
shsworks@sbcglobal.net
920-691-6030
Google Searches:
Steven Stearns
crazy real estate
Obeoman
Featured CNN IReport Superstar: Midwest Flooding-June 2008
Blog/Photos and Interviews on CNN National and CNN Headline News
I meant to spell: giving. I have been typing way too much today.
Steven
nice framing of the players in the social media sphere, but no one is going to “win” or “own” social media.
its like any new tool (PR, email marketing, e-games, seo, etc). there will be specialist firms, PR firms, ad agencies, in house departments, and guys in their basements all doing social media on some level.
Who owns PR? Who owns email? Who owns SEO?
as said above, it is another tool to add to your repertoire for your overall branding/advertising/marketing efforts.
I think this points to the larger issue of needing to tear down some walls.
We’re going to have to move to a strategic communication model where various functions are naturally integrated.
Advertising provides a valuable resources because it is often these people who have experience trying to maintain a consistent image for a corporation over and across campaigns.
Social media or not, a company has to be true to itself in all communication efforts.
a nice flick crossed my way on youtube this morning… it’s about change/shift in marketing reality and about the rise of social media. A brilliant summary and a superb animation. You may like it too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciSrNc1v17M
mikmak
Hello Jason,
Nicely framed, but as a Small Business owner I wish we could simplify things and just call it “Marketing” and train all of our employees that you are marketing everyday in everything you do.
We have used the Concepts and Tools to market our apartments and dropped all traditional marketing efforts in exchange for an Urbane MySpace site, an Urbane Facebook site, an Urbane You Tube site and an Urbane flickr site. Urbane Apartments and Urbane employees twitter regularly. To further integrate we started a Social Network site the Urbane Lobby where residents can meet and greet, trade pictures and videos and socialize on line. We manage and power a blog aimed at our residents the Urbane Blog, all designed around our target demographic local brand recognition.
Our Goal; “To provide our residents with an experience and value with a high enough return to create enough Customer Evangelists within our core resident base that they self rent our apartments.” We are working hard to lead our resident Influencers within our core resident base, and have transitioned most of our marketing budget inward, to further focus on our existing residents. Only good things have happened from this move. Resident retention has significantly improved, and we have created a forum and a field for the Influencers to participate.
Jason, Hello
Nice article and framing of the issue. However, as a small business owner, I wish we could just refer to all of this simply as Marketing. Small Business is better served to spend their resources training their employees to fully understand and behave in a manor conducive to the brand, and that we are always marketing in everything we do.
We have used the Social Media Concepts and Tools to market our apartments. In fact, we have dropped all traditional marketing efforts in exchange for an Urbane MySpace site, an Urbane Facebook site, an Urbane You Tube site and an Urbane flickr site. Urbane Apartments and Urbane employees twitter regularly. To further integrate we started a Social Network site the Urbane Lobby where residents can meet and greet, trade pictures and videos and socialize on line. We manage and power a blog aimed at our residents the Urbane Blog, all designed around our target demographic local brand recognition.
Our Goal; “To provide our residents with an experience and value with a high enough return to create enough Customer Evangelists within our core resident base that they self rent our apartments.” We are working hard to lead our resident Influencers within our core resident base, and have transitioned most of our marketing budget inward, to further focus on our existing residents. Only good things have happened from this move. Resident retention has significantly improved, and we have created a forum and a field for the Influencers to participate.
@Andy – No question the monetization (or lack thereof) is going to change the game. I foresee a ton of consolidation and failure in the social media tools arena in 2009.
@Cathy – I love your cross-functional planning approach. I think smart companies are working that way. But, agencies need every dollar they can get right now, so their inclination from a business perspective won’t be to play nice – unless the client demands it.
@Sue – Great to hear from you Sue! Thanks so much for the reco on the article. I’ll check it out.
@Elaine – Good analysis. There’s definitely a difference in social media emphasis between advertising folks (who think microsites and Facebook pages) and PR (who naturally think blogs). We’ll see if either can combine them strategically.
@jakrose – True, there won’t be one pure owner. That was more of a construct for the post. But when you look at the different types of agencies vying to be in charge of social media, I think the battle is real and ongoing. To answer your question, PR owns PR. Digital owns SEO (largely). Email is typically all over the board. Client mostly.
@Sam – Good point about advertising being involved for the long term. I think the same could be said about digital, especially in the search marketing arena. I concur that PR is hampered by their “campaign” and “program” mentality, and just discussed that with a PR client yesterday. Thanks for the observation.
@mikmak – I’ll check it out. Thank you!
@eric – Sounds like you are kicking ass in social media. Nice job. I would offer that your outcome (for now) is to opt for the client ownership of social media. Certainly in most small businesses, that will be the case. Huge props to you for committing the time to be consistently present in social media. I know it’s a huge time suck. Send me some links to your stuff. I’d love to see it and maybe case study you. Thanks for the comment.
Hey Jason – My vote goes with a new breed of “conversation agency” typified by companies like http://wearesocial.net/
I agree with just about all the the points on the struggle to control so far. However I believe the real ‘owner’ or party in control of social media have been proved to be the participants themselves.
This means both the consumer (those reading or counted as some sort of viewer) AND those actively using a social media-like channel will be the ones who are and will continue to influence change. The combined group of active and inactive participants monopolize “the conversation” based on what makes sense to the majority. This is where the people or masses have the majority influence or control.
Such social media enabled example cases or paradigm-shifts are still evolving. One such example involves the USB Implementers Forum (USB-IF / http://www.usb.org). As a long established group it has claimed (and thought) that it alone can represent the USB Developer/User Community worldwide. However the traditional role where a handful of companies get to control the agenda and set direction diminishes over time. The influence of the USB-IF body is shrinking whereas even its active membership is in decline. It once had 1000+ dues-paying companies with 10K+ individual members worldwide somewhat involved or connected. Whereas today the larger USB market itself is clearly in TOTAL control over USB in both the current and future sense.
The USB community at large doesn’t yet realize its powerful influence. But this seems to be changing through the expanded use and possible professional acceptance of social media.
Not to belabor the point of the apparent struggle of who is in control and who is winning, rather to further illustrate the many changes happening all around us, we should consider the ‘real power’ in any market today. If the worldwide consumption-based market wasn’t already in ultimate control then things would be already be different. The considerable resources and costly investment behind the USB-IF’’s On-The-Go (OTG) and Wireless USB (WUSB) standard efforts that have gone on for years would have already led to widespread adoption of these USB derivations. Costly efforts like these have attracted substantial investment into development and marketing, to include considerable PR and advertising in an attempt to create buzz, BUT ultimately the consuming User’s Vote has counted the most!
Worldwide uses of USB have already voted and plain old USB 2.0 is the undisputed winner. This living example shows *where* the interested participants themselves have the predisposed control and ultimate say in any social media channel or topic. They alone can and will monopolize a specific topic.
“Vox populi carpe diem–”
- Fact or wishful thinking?
I would also pull on the PR rope, but to be honestly, the group that is going to “own” social media in 2009 are consumers or audiences. We creative types can create the best campaign in the world, but if no one is going to read/view/digest the content, it’s all for nothing. We will bow down to the needs of the consumer and react/plan as such. That’s 2009.
I think that social media changes the whole game. It wont be one of them that will win but something new, a new kind of marketing – a marketing of people to people.
Just my $0.02
In a year SM will be well on its way to mainstream regardless of the particular owner. It’s inevitable. Prepare yourself for a time when businesses know how to use it effectively. How will you add value then?
Oh please.
You nailed it in your second paragraph with social media being fought in “boardroom discussions, conference keynotes, and merger activity.”
Is that so? Because the moment you accept that, Jason, is the moment you realize you don’t understand social media.
I respect your work, but once I read that phrase, I knew where the rest of the post was going, echoed by comments by jakrose and others.
Social media is not about boardrooms and mergers. Social media is about what happens outside of those constraints. Such as this blog that allows anyone to comment without registration (and presumedly without moderation).
Ideally you want your ad agency. They’re the most creative and will generate the most effective content. But they may balk for lack of a way to monetize the service. More imperiled categories, like PR companies, are more likely to fight for the honor, instead of fading into oblivion.
Either way, the future of all this isn’t for bureaucrats who wait for the responsibility to be GIVEN to them, but for those who seize it, or are seized BY the urge to go social on behalf of their client.
It will go to those who see it as so simple as to be ridiculous to be discussing; so malleable and inevitable as to make “caution” or “process” irrelevant.
They won’t need to be told to “listen” or “monitor,” any more than you need to be told to check your personal email.
It won’t go to a category of business, like PR, Ad Agency, etc. It will go to a category of person.
This person doesn’t read Marketing Profs or case studies put out by Forrester. They don’t fly to Scottsdale to attend conferences on Social Media.
They’re in darkened rooms typing gleefully for hours …. where they found their true voice years ago, where they learned the art of listening, the art of community.
If that notion scares you, you probably already lost. If that intrigues you or inspires a glimmer of self-recognition, you have a chance.
If there’s a social media job on the table, and you want to get it, then take it without permission. Sure, be careful, tasteful, strategic; tread lightly, blamelessly, impermanently. But above all, BE FIRST. The way to win the competition for social media is to refuse to compete for it.
Great discussion, here.
As a PR pro, I’m of course excited and a bit flattered at the idea that SM could “belong” to the PR industry due to our expertise on building relationships and generating coverage by telling the story to the right people.
However, what seems more apparent to me these days is the definition of “advertising” vs. “pr”. As SM expert David Meerman Scott points out in his writings, these lines are so blurred. If you talk to anyone in the “advertising” or “pr” industries who also has a sense of SM, their job descriptions and purpose will be relatively similar.
So, getting back to the “ownership” — I agree with comments here that say, why not just call it “marketing.” Truth is, no matter what you call it, or who owns it in your particular organization or consultant/client structure, SM falls under the whole mar/com communications umbrella. In that same vein, the idea of a “social marketing expert” seems misguided. Wouldn’t you want a “marketing expert” who understands social media?
More importantly, though, you can’t just assign it to someone and assume it’s going to take shape. The discussion needs to move away from WHO does it, to the HOW and WHY. Without first establishing a clearly defined marketing strategy, SM tactics will be haphazard and misguided.
So, my answer? Look at the whole picture. Look at your strategy. Look at what you are trying to accomplish and who you are trying to reach. Then, figure out who best to manage the task.
Great discussion, here.
As a PR pro, I’m of course excited and a bit flattered at the idea that SM could “belong” to the PR industry due to our expertise on building relationships and generating coverage by telling the story to the right people.
However, what seems more apparent to me these days is the definition of “advertising” vs. “pr”. As SM expert David Meerman Scott points out in his writings, these lines are so blurred. If you talk to anyone in the “advertising” or “pr” industries who also has a sense of SM, their job descriptions and purpose will be relatively similar.
So, getting back to the “ownership” — I agree with comments here that say, why not just call it “marketing.” Truth is, no matter what you call it, or who owns it in your particular organization or consultant/client structure, SM falls under the whole mar/com communications umbrella. In that same vein, the idea of a “social marketing expert” seems misguided. Wouldn’t you want a “marketing expert” who understands social media?
More importantly, though, you can’t just assign it to someone and assume it’s going to take shape. The discussion needs to move away from WHO does it, to the HOW and WHY. Without first establishing a clearly defined marketing strategy, SM tactics will be haphazard and misguided.
So, my answer? Look at the whole picture. Look at your strategy. Look at what you are trying to accomplish and who you are trying to reach. Then, figure out who best to manage the task.
@Don – I agree that unlike almost any other form of marketing, consumers will be able to shift social media conventions to meet their own desires. That’s an exciting opportunity for us all.
@Larry – It sounds like you’re advocating for a new kind of “conversation agency” as others here have done. I don’t disagree that may be the optimal outcome, but upstart agency types don’t usually win across-the-board.
@Dale – I might argue that social media is already mainstream. More people use Facebook every month, than watch American Idol. And American Idol is rarely considered a niche player!
@Ari – Of course, the philosophy of social media is much bigger than this, which is why I so often write about strategy over tactics. But ultimately, brands large and small need to decide whether and how to get involved. That decision will be influenced inexorably by one or more of their existing agency partners, all of whom want to be able to charge for social media advice and execution in a frighteningly bad era for marketing expenditures. If you actually believe that somehow social media is immune to business influences when billions of dollars will be at stake, I’d offer that your view of the marketing world is unrealistic.
Further, because my consulting practice is primarily devoted to working with agencies to help them understand and execute social media, combined with the fact that I’ve been in the agency business for 15+ years, I naturally look at things through that prism. Your prism is based on your deep experience in government and journalism, so I can see where my capitalist leanings in this regard might be distasteful, but to suggest that because I comment on the business side of social media means I don’t understand social media is a bit much.
@RL – Very interesting comment, thank you. I’d agree that there is a type of person that gravitates toward social media, and can be effective at it. My concern is that those types of people sometimes don’t have the “pull” in an organization to align the necessary resources. Your point about ad agencies having the creative edge is right on, too.
@Kary – Bingo. It’s all about strategy. And there’s no question the lines are blurring. I would love to call it “marketing” and be done with it. But in my experience, agencies (and their clients, more importantly) don’t do that. They all want to pigeon hole one another. Easier to make sense of the maelstrom that way, although it’s a bit lazy.
Jason, thanks for dropping by my blog with a comment. I meant to also leave a comment here but got side tracked:)
Anyway it seems there’s some confusion about your original intended topic, that is to talk about competition between outside entities and agencies and not necessarily between groups within an organization (I think). I certainly got this sense based on the comments people left here. I know I had to go back and read your article twice. I guess it’s dangerous to skim-read as you can definitely miss stuff. Regardless, all are interesting comments and I learn a lot. Keep ‘em coming.
@chuynh – Thanks very much. Indeed, the intention was to paint the picture about how different types of agencies are jostling to oversee social media initiatives for their corporate clients.
I agree with you that PR seems to be the most legitimate to lead the charge, and I’ve been advocating this idea as the former manager of the online PR dept of a reasonably big agency in Europe. One thing keeps nagging me though, which I can’t find in your post or in the comments: scale. Yes, PR is great at managing conversations, interpersonal connections. They’re great at handling one-to-few communications, say with selected journalists or key opinion leaders. But beyond maybe a couple hundred contacts, one-to-few, becomes one-to-many communication, and the ‘relationship’ aspect gets lost in the process. Your nice peer-to-peer (sort of) relationship reverts to top-down, email blasts. Worse, PR professionals can handle good and bad relationships, but not many of them at the same time. Hence the scalability issue, best addressed by CRM and customer service (always the dark horse; don’t discount them). In the end though, we’re trying to use old paradigms to describe a new reality which will be somewhat a mix of everything. You need the strategic, relationship-building thinking of PR, the creativity of advertising, the operational capabilities of digital and a very sophisticated client to herd these cats
You lost me at “critically important tug of war.” There’s not enough money in it at this point for social media to be critically important to decision makers at advertising agencies.
@Stan – I agree that PR is best positioned currently, but definitely isn’t ready in most cases to do it all yet. I concur that customer service and CRM are definitely key players in any true social media effort. Just not sure they have enough power in most organizations to lead the charge – sadly.
@David – “There’s not enough money in it” is almost word for word what advertising said about online marketing circa 1998, and it’s taken them 10+ years to recover from that lack of foresight.
Jason, great post! I know you are talking about these tug of wars from, I think, an external agency or, maybe, an internal departmental perspective (it was a bit unclear), but I’d like to add a different perspective.
In my career, marcom always encompassed all these roles (clients would be internal customers)and agencies were just used for the tactical implemention (strategy was always done in house because the marketers knew the products/services/customers best).
Anyway, a while back Jason Falls wrote a post about this topic but it was marketing vs. PR. And, of course, I came down on the side of marketing (even though I am a PR practitioner too), but then after a lot of consideration I came to the conclusion, that from an internal perspective for social media to work all departments need to understand and embrace the brand first (i.e. understand that all their interactions with a customer could affect — either positively or negatively — brand experience and revenues). From that perspective it makes sense that the people that are used to having two-way conversations might become the social media owners (customer service, sales, business development, etc.) and not necessarily marketing, PR, advertising or digital folks.
That said, I think in companies where it’s the norm for marketers/PR/etc. to talk to customers, social media implementation is the next step and they will need consultants and agencies to temporarily guide them (regardless of what RL says…).
As well, I agree with you that discussions around social media will initiate boardroom discussions, conference keynotes, and merger activity in 2009. And watching it/hearing about it will be very interesting!
So, I probably have gone down a completely different path than you intended (sorry!) but I think it’s important to have an “insider’s” perspective.
@Beth -Thanks very much for the comment. Good stuff. Yes, I was really thinking about different external agency types, and how they are all jockeying to be the social media champion for the client.
I completely agree that the agencies that are most conversational in their approach, and not just addicted to the megaphone (regardless of format), are best positioned to lead the social media charge.
In comparison to ad agencies and digital agencies, I think PR is typically the best choice.
I essentially only consult for agencies, so I’m right in the middle of this discussion (plus, I owned an agency for 10 years). Everyone is putting their social media “packages” together, acquiring talent or training, and pitching clients. Should be interesting to see how it all turns out.
You wrote: “…There is too much at stake this time, and advertising is just now recovering from the industry-wide hubris that caused them to largely miss the digital wave, giving rise to hundreds of digital agencies. They won’t repeat that blunder…”
Other “big industry” has not learned from their mistakes and ARE repeating their blunders.
Why would anyone assume “big advertising” won’t repeat theirs?