About a month ago Shel Isreal wrote a post Two Social Media Camps in the Enterprise, that described 2 social media camps, one focused on marketing ends and other wanting to keep social media more pure and not polluted by marketing interests. On that post I commented that I am between both camps but I did not consider what really put me there. I later realized that I’m noticing that the marketing camp is actually made of 2 camps itself.
On the pro marketing side you have one camp made of social media conversationalists who are working to foster on-line conversations to build affinity in the products and brands they represent. And on the other side of the pro marketing camp is one looking at social media as an audience to target. This camp is leveraging smart semantic tools to target content in banners and sponsored spaces at the dialogue.
I put myself in the marketing camp that is focused in and on the conversation, rather than the one that is focused on promoting content at the conversation. Now don’t get me wrong. I don’t think one is right or should exist over the other. By being in one camp I believe you can appreciate or understand the other camp. Having a Bachelors degree in advertising I have a great appreciation for the value and the importance of targeting controlled messages to a key demographic. It does serve a purpose, but I just don’t think it’s social media.
Again, nothing wrong with it. I believe it is smart media. I believe it is leveraging social media techniques… but bottom line it is still a broadcast message and not a conversation, so don’t confuse it with social media.
Now I’m sure the social media purist and the on-line media guys might both argue, there’s little difference. Arguably it may seem that responding to a comment that promotes your marketing interest, vs. a smart placement of content in a banner ad near the conversation are virtually the same thing. But the key difference is one is a conversation and one isn’t. When in the conversation, the community can respond to the comment which adds to the dialogue. While a smart media positioned at or near the conversation is left sitting there hoping for click throughs.
Now I’m sure we will see this line blurred. We are already seeing banner ads and sponsored content that you can respond to. We are seeing tag clouds appear in sponsored areas and commercial content that takes you to a blog or forum or chat. And with that I believe we do have social media. So I don’t think it is necessarily one camp vs another, or marketing or vs purist social media. It’s more of a how you define social media. If your efforts enable active listening and responses between multiple parties, regardless of intent , then I think that is the social media and good for the on-line community.
You’re very talented, thoughtful and able to sculpt data and notions into a meaningful expressions and tales. Thank you!
I believe we’re seeing the banner ad facing stiff competition from dynamically programmable widgets that bring blogs posts, audio and video stories into meaningful places around the Web. See what we’re trying with our sponsorship of Tom Foremski’s http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com.
I’m roasting marshmallows inside your campground, and I think I heard you or Intel Blogfather Bryan Rhoads once ask something like: why can’t we put our marketing resources and skills to help market conversations. By that, I think it’s akin to us emailing a relevant news clip to a coworker, passing on that face splitting, hilarious viral video or sharing with our loved ones insites and stories that are meaningful to them, that fit their interests. But aggregating and “optimizing” what others say becomes more valuable and believable when stories, photos, videos are shared openly by brands/personalities (or individuals inside companies). The magic happens when they meet…well, when someone finds them and together they re-enforce what is true and unlikely.
This leads me to my next read: “Personality Not Included,” by our pal Rohit Bhargava.
Thanks for the Toon and sharing what you see shaping up! Blog on Irish dude. Let that Italian in you get out there — at least once in a while!!
Hey Ken, this is why I love this medium. I discuss something in the abstract and immediatly get a reply with a real example. of moving online media from broadcast to social. Would be interesting to compare click rates on an item like that compared to a traditional banner ad. IT Utopia integration of Open Port feeds is similarly a step in the right direction. Exciting stuff!
Hi Bob,
I stumbled across Michael’s article today which pointed to your post.
I really like the concept of “in the conversation” versus “at the conversation”. It really paints a clear illustration of the difference between the two approaches. Conversational ad targeting may help one target certain conversations to place ads (being “at” the conversation), but that is a far stretch from being “in” the conversation.
Certainly advertising can help create brand awareness, but it doesn’t build relationships, conversation or trust. To do that you have to participate in the conversation.
I like how you summed it up, “If your efforts enable active listening and responses between multiple parties, regardless of intent , then I think that is the social media.” Well said.
Marcel
CEO, Radian6
http://www.radian6.com
I read your posts for a long time and should tell you that your posts always prove to be of a high value and quality for readers.