Social media is obviously a powerful
platform. But it is only as
powerful as a marketers ability to use it, and most brands fall woefully short
of capturing the medium’s potential. With any trend or fad - whether or not
social media is one, the other or neither will be addressed below – people
clamor to be a part of it. As they
do, they usually make either one of two mistakes: 1) they assume it’s the right choice for them, or 2) they
assume they don’t have to be an expert at it to benefit from it. For the average person looking for
additional sources of continuous entertainment or recognition, neither of these
mistakes is too egregious. They’re
annoying, but no one suffers. But when the weight and dollars of corporate
marketing departments are involved, the mistakes are far less forgiving. Where brands mostly go wrong is what
can aptly be termed “obsessing over the conversation.”
Many brands’ desires to execute effective
social media campaigns come from an obsessive need to “be part of the
conversation” or to “talk directly to the consumer.” This often leads companies
to interject themselves into conversations, despite whether or not it’s
appropriate. Gatorade’s “Mission
Control” concept is a prime example.
The problem for brands taking this approach to social media is that they
are trying to forcefully interject themselves into what is intended to be
honest and sincere conversation.
The honesty and trust of social media is what makes it so impactful. But the honesty exist because it’s a
conversation between two people who have some degree of report or inherent trust
amongst them, even if it’s just based on one or the other’s status as an expert,
even if its by way of being the first person to disseminate the information. For Gatorade to have a “Mission
Control” center for social media misses the point. Consumers don’t want brands to be part of their social
circles. They want other people to
be part of their social circles. No one wants to have “conversations” with
brands. Plenty of people want to complain
about brands, but complaining and conversing are very different things. More importantly, people don’t believe
brands want to converse with them – they believe they want to sell something to
them. Its capitalism, and its
great, but its also pretty black and white. People want to have conversations with other people. No
matter how badly marketers want to view the products on whose behalves they
advocate for as living breathing entities, brands aren’t people. Most people
certainly don’t view them as such.
Social media can be an incredibly
personal medium, and few brands have a strong enough sense of themselves to be
able to engage consumers as if they were a real person. When its done right, it can be an impactful
thing; honest and consistent dialogue.
But consistency in voice and message for a brand on social media is very
difficult. Unless one person is in
charge of all online conversation for a brand or company, consistency is nearly
impossible. Which makes
establishing a believable and honest personality on behalf of the brand a false
premise. Here again, brands aren’t
people. Sure, the people speaking
on a brand’s behalf are people, but the odds of hiring enough employees that
share the personality of your brand is slim. Just as its tough to fake personality in real life,
it’s tough for a single personal to sincerely embody the essence of a brand,
let alone for a few dozen to do so. So the whole premise of “having a
conversation” with your consumer is inherently flawed, at least from the perspective
of a brand doing it. Nobody
wants to talk to a sports drink, because a sports drink is not a real
person. They certainly don’t want
to be interrupted by a sports drink while they are talking about it. It’s
intrusive and seems insincere and off putting, even to the point of dishonesty.
A lot of companies view their social media
platforms as opportunities for problem solving. This is a much more useful space for a brand to
inhabit. A brand’s ability to monitor
complaints and solve issues before they become too public is the saving grace
of social media platforms. But brands
do not have to have conversations with customers to uncover problem; they need
only observe and most importantly listen.
It’s a far safer place for companies to sit. Let others have conversations, and from those conversations,
uncover problems to be solved, and then solve them quickly, quietly, and
without all the fuss of “dialogue with the consumer.”
The real power for brands in social media
is when content goes viral; when consumers personally connect with a brand,
independently pick up its message, and transmit it through their personal
ecosystems. What makes this format
so powerful is that its honest, sincere, and the greatest form of brand
flattery. When playing the viral
game, the assumption is often made, and incorrectly so, that you have to go out
of your way to create content viral in nature. You don’t. More
often then not, all a brand needs to do is stick to its traditional media and
advertising plans, as the average viral brand video is nothing more than the
traditional 30 second television spot – in terms of concept and production at
least. Where brands do need to
take extra steps in preparation is by remaining flexible enough to respond
appropriately if their content does go viral. It does a brand no good to have
content go viral, create an ecosystem of demand for more interaction, and then
have no resources left to meet it.
But here too, brands must be careful to not try to hard to create viral
content. As with many things in
life, trying to hard can backfire in a bad way, and this is certainly the case
when brands purposefully set out to create viral content. A recent article in Quartz titled “You
didn’t Make the Harlem Shake Go Viral, Corporations Did,” details just how manipulative the viral game can be
played. The more brands decide to
go down the road of paying people to push their content in what seems like an
honest form of viral dissemination, the sooner the viral landscape becomes as
insincere as “dialogue” or “conversation.”
So is social media a trend, a fad, or
something that is here to stay? I’d argue that it’s really neither, but is
instead just a new format for brands to leverage. It’s new sure, but so was the television and radio at some
point. The underlying marketing principles it takes for a brand to succeed in
those mediums do not change just because of social media. The best campaigns are still the
simplest. To the extent that
companies need social media plans, they don’t have to do anything different
than they do across all other mediums. When they try to do things differently
in some ill-conceived notion of honest dialogue is when they find trouble.
