My friend, Kate Carruthers, has a great blog post up in which she draws the analogy between those touting social networks as the next great place to make money and the Bible story of Jesus and the money-changers. She says:
I hate this approach to social networks. To me they are community gathering places not centres of commerce. Sure asking people to take social or charitable action fits in. But commercial exercises feel very unnatural.
Yes! Yes! A thousand times yes!
Until less than two years ago, I very much doubt I had professionally met someone whose job was explicitly marketing or advertising. Let alone met them in the context of a social network and our collective engagement in it.
I am beyond over the cynical exhortations of those who believe using social networks will make them popular or rich or sell their amazing new product. This despite some in the marketing industry who believe that what people like me say supports their position or has value to them.
Let’s stop thinking about using social networks to sell stuff! Rather, let’s use them to create, build and nurture powerful, connected, creative and engaged communities that help each other, that bring humanity to the connections made there, and, if we’re using them for business, at least have a modicum of altruism about them and consider being of use to the customers of that business rather than sucking additional dollars from them.
Of course, it’s not everyone doing this. Some are thinking and doing what Kate and I consider the right thing. If that’s you, please keep doing it. And tell people what you think.
The sooner the money-changers are banished from the temple, the better.
{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }
Enh.
Considering that what you are selling is consultancy as a ‘social media expert’, isn’t just about *anything* you do on any social network at least in some way a sales exercise?
Okay okay, I’m sure you’d be Twittering all over my Facebook even if you were a plumber, but what I mean is, the temple door analogy is so extremely broken for so many hypocritical reasons that it’s kind of shocking to me that smart folks like you and Kate would even engage in such silliness.
Social media is *not* a temple. It *is* a market. As in the old fashioned kind of market – a place to chat, catch up with friends, get the latest news, and (Gasp! Shock! Horror!) buy and sell stuff. I have worked for people who found me through Twitter, I have paid for the services of people I found through Facebook. Business transactions are one of the many essential things that the whole social web is changing and, I think, improving. If we improve any as human beings in the process it will (and should) be because we’re thinking and understanding ourselves and others better, not because social media is made of love inducing pixie dust.
Having said that, people who are *only* using social media to spam us all should be shot. Of course.
“conversation … relationship … transaction” – I agree with Matt that the possibility of a financial transaction shouldn’t be anathema to us on Twitter (and other networks) – but it shouldn’t be the first and only interest, which is I think what Steve is objecting to (and Matt prescribes a drastic but possibly effective remedy for!).
I have had many conversations with @trib, believe we have a relationship of sorts, and I certainly have no objection at some point to working with him for financial exchange … but I might feel very differently about the last step without the first two.
So, in response to both Matt and Ric, whose opinions and friendship I value on a personal (first) and professional (second) basis – yes, of course I mean that social networks and social media (two quite different things, despite the blurring) are open to all comers for all needs or wants. But that my strong preference is that we seek relationship, engagement and understanding there, long before we seek to transact anything financial.
Indeed, and I forget the source for my (mis)quote, but “users will make of the network what they want of it, not what you intend for it.” So, I’m railing against something I can never beat.
As I said to Nick Hodge when we discussed it for his show, I am a “pragmatic Cluetrainer”, and it’s that which guides my thinking. Those using these tools simply for some form of gain are pollution.
And, Matt, to be completely clear, I was a UX, business, change, communities kind of a guy professionally, long before I was branded by others as having a clue about social media. And it’s those disciplines where my heart remains, and what influences me most heavily.
And contrary to the beliefs of what seems to be many, advising on social media brings in less than 1/10 my income – I’m not sure why that is, but I suspect it’s many factors including some other well-established and very good people doing that work, hype and noise in the market, geography, and the fact that I’m actually uncomfortable selling it as a product. I’d rather talk about community strategy and long term business value with social media a part of a much bigger context.
Is it possible to keep the financial side away from something like a social network, *especially* when the tools are free to all?
There are some inherent costs being incurred somewhere around the network. Surely someone has to pay the bill for this somewhere.
A network might be used for developing relationships and building communities. But those who want to take such a network and monetize it somehow will be given more latitude than those altruistic members, won’t they?
Unless people are prepared to put some money forward somehow (be it donations, through the support of advertising, or some future silver bullet), I think the money changers will continue to lurk around the temple.
I’m going to be typically magnanimous and say it’s a little from column A and a little from column B. Advertising and direct sales / ROI are only one aspect of marketing. I think there are a huge number of marketers on Twitter and elsewhere that are using it primarily as a relationship building model, not as an advertising channel. Yet this is still motivated by the goal of making money.
Most businesses that view marketing as purely about advertising and see social networks as a channel to push out those specials for a quick sale, are most likely to fail – we know this. There are rules to the game and the customer has control, etc, etc. Then again some big brands have proven the exception to this and succeeded very well by doing exactly that (Dell for one example).
A centre of commerce is always going to be where the people gather. Google is a centre of commerce – hence SEO was born. Town centres are a centre of commerce which is why shops charge more rent there. Media channels are a centre of commerce for advertisers because they have the audience.
Social networks are no different. Marketers are not wrong for describing networks as a business opportunity. Some are just misguided in how they exploit that opportunity.
Social networks are exactly that..social networks. They can incorporate everything from sales and marketing to meeting your old mates from way back.
There are companies that just want to sell stuff, as there would be in any social sense. If you don’t like them, walk past their shop!
I have to say that I agree with the post entirely. Social networks for companies (that might use a consulting service). Should focus on building relationships, communicating with their clients, providing customer service, taking product feedback and ideas. You could characterise these things as sales and marketing, in the same way as getting an excellent response to a faulty product in a shop could be.
The only ones that annoy me are the get rich quick schemes designed to sucker the gullible, but don’t get me started on those!
Meh, how many time does this conversation need to be had…
We pursue relationships for one reason (largely); to support our needs…emotionally, spiritually and physically.
Great marketers know this…great organisations DO this.
Ignore the ridiculous descriptors we are all guilty of re-purposing and professing to understand like ‘social media’ and ‘social networks’ fair dinkum – who cares…the way we have conversation and seek relationships has shifted slightly with the advent of this network of servers called the internet, but little else has changed!
Stop beating up on corporations and ‘brands’ that try to sell on ‘your’ beloved social media whatevers. Without them and the financial success they represent we would not be enjoying these ‘tools’ period.
There are no rules – relax…and for most of those people who I have met who claim to be ‘social media mavens’ and whatever sounds funky right now – these corporations are not selling to you anyway; because generally you have no money to buy what they are selling (and they know this).
What is my point…let the money changers do what they want, surely the point is that we all need to learn to live together and tolerate one another’s foibles! Like life, there are no rules; so please stop trying to make them up as you go!
The no-commerce argument on social media is an interesting one. There is conflicting evidence on social media’s ability to drive revenues and its utility as a tactically-based mechanism, but I am aware of some notable successes.
A theme that I find of particular interest is how analogous social media is to public relations, when the latter is practiced at its optimum, most strategic level. (Anyone who thinks public relations is a synonym for media relations, go to the back of the class.)
Public relations, at its most strategic level, is about engaging in a dialogue, sharing power and changing both organisational and stakeholder behaviours. Social media, by its very nature and the general garrulousness of human beings, is also leading, I believe, to increased organisational transparency, once again being driven by and also leading to, organisation-stakeholder engagement and change. Sooner or later, this has got to lead to a more satisfying society for all of us.
So, maybe social media is more about brand and reputation than the tactical/sales element. But there will always be room for both. Just some thoughts, anyway.
Craig, I’m inclined to agree with your points as they apply to strategy, dialogue and relationships – it’s in this way that marketing and PR can play well in social media. It’s when the turn to just selling comes and it gets pushy that folk like me get annoyed.
I’d love to talk more.
The social selling is truely an art. Relationship, influence, relevance, and timing are key.
I do have social marketing friends on facebook who do the occasional update-spam-fest, and it does make me wonder when I will remove them from my list. Facebook uses groups to isolate p2p spam.
Hey Jonathan I think you’ve hit on one of the key things that I was complaining about (that I did not really make explicit).
The difference between a lot of the advertising (especially undifferentiated spam type advertising) we’re seeing on Twitter and relationship marketing is enormous.
The kind of interaction that we’re seeing from brands like Telstra, Oracle, Comcast, Zappos to name a few is not intrusive at all. These are brands that get it. Many others do not get it!
I don’t really have a problem with the latter. But the former is getting my goat!
Remember, not all marketers are as switched on as you
Kate Carruthers July 20, 2009 9:39 PM
This comment was originally posted on CopyWrite
Ooh, praise! I’ll take that!
My issue is that marketing is often criticised for doing what we do, or is considered somehow separate (and lesser) to other digital practices. Marketing shouldn’t be held at arms length, yet there seems to be a trend lately to view marketing as the unwanted guest at the table, which is unrealistic.
There is bad marketing in these networks. But then there are also bad web designers, bad apps, bad users, bad bloggers, etc. Should we shut the social networks to them as well? Bad anything on Twitter (or wherever) gets my goat too, but in all these things, we have to take the bad with the good. The beauty of social networks is that the bad withers on the vine while the good is shared, grows and thrives.
Kimota July 21, 2009 9:39 AM
This comment was originally posted on CopyWrite
I guess it’s no surprise that I’m going to side with the marketers as well. From a puristic perspective, I agree with Kate’s & Trib’s perspective. I don’t beleive social environments are ideal as a direct response medium. As you point out, advocacy and relationship building is where the real benefit is. But at the end of the day, why do marketers participate in relationship building activities? To retain customers and sell more product. So it is still a commercial motivation.
On another note, that long lost twin ESP thing seems to be emerging again. I’ve made pretty much exactly the same point about Dell’s use of Twitter in a guest post that’ll be published in the next day or so over at Huomah. Peas in a pod… James Duthie July 21, 2009 10:29 AM
This comment was originally posted on CopyWrite
{ 1 trackback }