So Social Networks and Marketing take it on the chin when P&G digital guy Connell says at some conference, and then in AdWeak, that na'er the tween should meet.
I'd been meaning to comment, but didn't make the time for it over the last few days. Then I stumble across a rant from John Batelle at the OPEN Forum facilitated (aka marketed) by American Express, called
It's Time to Put This Myth to Rest - that's a strong title, as if Batelle is the last word on such matters, but anyway . . . he has a good company and seems to be a good guy. John points out that Social Networks aren't necessarily clamoring for bad (proximity) marketing dollars from the big brands like traditional media is accustomed. The idea of marketing being used to start and sustain a conversation is something people say, but when you're media planning, it's how many impressions and at what CPP, and funny it's rarely then how much product did we move based on such measures.
Here's a little of John's rant.
So what do I mean when I say a conversational approach? Well, let’s break down what makes for a great conversation. First, all parties involved are in the conversation because they’ve chosen to be – not because they’re been tricked or cajoled into it. Second, there’s a strong value exchange – a give and take between parties which makes everyone feel like they are gaining something. Critical to this, of course, is the value of listening, internalizing, and responding. Third, each participant understands who the other participants are – there’s transparency and integrity in the conversation.
We all know and believe that conversation, authenticity, transparency, et al are all important in marketing today. At least that's what the echo chamber is talking about. But the understanding of what this means and the funding behind it isn't there. Connell's looking at Facebook as a vehicle to point their carefully crafted message at a certain audience.
Chatting with some big brands lately and their enterprise web efforts and the meetings are all about facilitating these conversations and on and on, and then in the last 2 minutes as "next steps", we always get the "and we'll have to add a slide on how this will immediately convert to sales". What? No matter if we're talking about brand reputation, ambassador programs, environmental programs, whatever. Somehow, all of those wildly different conversations, in whatever form on the web, need to immediately lead to a sale. Why? Is that how it worked before the internet made that somewhat easier? Is there any evidence for any product or brand that a conversation, positive, negative or neutral - led directly to some sort of a purchase. Of course not, and the internet or any other media doesn't magically do that.
A conversation is about talking, listening and responding; then listening again, considering a response, responding and then listening again. It's not about pushing messages and then recording the sales.
I fundamentally agree with P&G's Connell that spraying banner ads in Facebook is silly (no different though than running interruptory spots during The Office), but to suggest that Social Networks and marketing should not work together is sillier.
