I also like the http://tinyurl.com/y8wqgap/ at the end, like you have it

I'd say average work is either i) not integrated to other marcoms disciplines, ii) not well researched, iii) has no clear objective / metrics or iv) is not sympathetic to the fact that Social isn't 'media' (i.e. general lack of connection/communication/conversation)… or a combination of the above.

For all businesses – big or small, the key to doing great work in this area isn't necessarily dependent on an agency …the main requirement is a sensible commitment to resources – people, content, time, good thinking, etc…

What are your thoughts on the above?

Would love to know what you think?!

I imagine when someone employs an advertising agency to create a TV ad, that the advertising agency doesn’t bother the client with details such as video formats, types of cameras used, 16:9 / 14:9 title safe etc, which is one of the problems with online marketing, there is a lot of jargon used that just isn’t relevant to the client. Telling them you have 500 Delicious bookmarks, there first reaction might be “what makes them so tasty?” It’s more useful just knowing that more people are sharing and engaging in your brand. Its useful to the marketer to know the details, but this just confuses clients.

http://hatchpr.blogspot.com/2009/10/separating-social-media-guru-from.html

I think social media agencies can’t agree themselves as to how to call themselves – e.g. Robin’s Conversation Agency, Roger’s Online PR agency – I think most business people will be thinking in terms of ‘social media agency’ still, though, however much you try to convince them otherwise.

The principles of engaging in social media is nothing new, in fact its how things were done before broadcast media turned marketing & advertising into a screaming match. Some of the problems with “social media agencies” as such is you have techy people doing marketing. “Social media” is not techy. It’s about relationships, it’s about language and communication. That’s the field of PR and communications experts. One big difference is now these people have access to a large number of metrics that they didn’t have before, which makes things both interesting and confusing at the same time. I think its easier for PR/marketing professionals to learn about these metrics then it is for techy/mathematical minded people to learn about PR/marketing strategies.

I come from a techy/mathematical background, however I’ve also had some involvement with more creative industries and projects, giving me an insight into how to execute marketing strategies. However I’d never claim to be able to implement them because I only know the basics. I can help PR/marketing professionals use data that is available to them so that it helps them understand what was previously unknown and guesses about how successful their campaigns were. The number of twitter followers is a fairly meaningless metric unless you can put some context into it i.e. show how content you tweeted, blogged about and referrenced from twitter then lead to sales, or even just page views. Or how when you started using Twitter, your YouTube video views increased etc… data needs to be linked up together to have any purpose, and it all depends on your objectives. Also, having this data helps you understand what worked when you tried something new out.

keep up the myth-busting & keeping it real!

In relation to your point ref medium vs message, the original post was designed to help clients get comfortable with just using Social Media tools.

Many of those we speak to (in big brands) are petrified of touching them… for many different reasons (FUD usually the top one – and it’s always because they’re fixated on the medium, not the message). But, as with fear of heights, they’re usually a lot more comfortable once they can do stuff and they can see a simple, no-nonsense role for themselves within it.

Like ‘Hey, this is just like, um, talking! Great! Let’s go make nice…’

I’m with you – there are nuances aplenty…. but most firms just need our help in slaying some of the ghosts first….

That definitely makes us a ‘dumb it down’ group of people…. But it’s essential if we want to make first base.

Please don’t think I’m trolling here Roger, because you’re doing great stuff. Just my 2 cents.

i

Ref ‘Social Media Agency’ you guys describe yourselves as a ‘Conversation Agency’, which I think is helpful… but why is this? You could have been a bog standard Social thing… no?

But I’m guessing if you’re doing great work then you’re also doing great things for your clients’ SEO, PR, customer service, etc. So our advice to clients is generally not to limit the scope of what they’re looking for and/or what they want to measure by the ‘Media-ness’ of all this stuff. (ie, it’s a bigger thought than YouTube views, Twitter followings, etc, as I’m sure you’d agree)…. and to look at the broader picture.

Not that this post provides a new label, mind…. More of a health warning against just thinking about Social Media / Online PR and the next big old label that comes along… (ie, we ought to be thinking about some very trad things like how Social Media can help with retention, awareness, relationships, traffic acquisition, satisfaction, etc, etc – but that doesn’t sound very glam for you or I).

Thoughts?