Which conversations are markets?
- Josh Mehlman, Stuart Ridley
- 10 November 2009
Photo credit: ilco, sxc.hu
However, both these attitudes can get you into trouble - with staff, customers and the general public - if you break the laws of the online community. The problem is, nobody knows exactly what those laws are.
First of all, there's a debate around which people within a company - or outside it - should be responsible for marketing to social networks: a PR firm, the marketing department, the IT department, executives, the HR department, ad agencies or even the receptionist who has a lot of friends on Facebook.
Futurist and media technology strategist Mark Pesce believes it's everyone's job.
"The strength of social media is that they empower individuals throughout an organisation to speak on behalf of that organisation," he says. "Is this potentially confusing and chaotic? Yes. Get used to it. This is the way things work now."
Ray Welling, co-founder of digital content agency Zazoo
, thinks
social media marketing is like any other marketing: best left to the marketing department.
"Social media marketing is about getting close to your customer, listening to what he or she has to say and responding appropriately," he says. "Marketing needs to manage that interaction, but they also need to feed that information back to all those other departments and encourage them to participate."
Can you control social media?
Many business owners, deeply suspicious of social media, try to control what their staff say, or block access entirely during work hours.
"One of the biggest myths I hear about social media is that it has taken control away from the businesses and given it to customers - complete rot," says Jonathan Crossfield of Netregistry. "Social media have merely empowered everyone with the same set of tools and ability to spread a message.
"The only way a business loses control in this space is by giving it away by blocking its own access."
Control is important, but it means setting realistic rules, says Tim Burrowes, publisher of media and marketing website mUmBRELLA.
"For example, you could tell staff when they comment on industry issues [to] identify themselves clearly, and set standards for courteous conduct when they are speaking for the company or [are] identifiable as associated with the brand," he says. "Employers shouldn't block access to social networks. If you can't trust your staff to do their work then deal with that issue - don't blame Facebook."
Faking it
At Nett we often say that building a following and credibility in social media takes time and hard work. You also need to be genuine, because audiences can spot a fake. However, there are a number of techniques one can use to push things along a little.
"Everyone does them, it's just that no one will admit it," says one new-media entrepreneur, who did not want to be identified.
‘Trusted avatars'
One example was brought to a head recently when mUmBRELLA reported that Geoff Emerson, founder of marketing agency The Prosperity Principal, was looking to hire a social search consultant who would "take on a supplied persona and join in on the conversation" in social media to promote clients' products. This concept of a ‘trusted avatar' attracted a storm of controversy. (Emerson did not respond to our questions in time for our print deadline.)
Most of the experts we interviewed were dead against the idea.
"These practices make our relationships less trustworthy," says David Weinberger, a senior researcher at Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet & Society and a co-author of The Cluetrain Manifesto.
"Eroding trust for personal gain is, in a word, evil. Oh, it's not evil on the order of genocide or child abuse, but it turns our willingness to embrace others against us."
"Under no circumstances," says Pesce. "This is basically a fraudulent activity."
Seeding conversations
Another common, and commonly frowned-upon, technique is ‘seeding' a conversation by posting a question on an online forum or blog and then answering it - in a way that promotes your product or service - using another identity or ‘sock puppet'.
Social media advisor Ian Lyons believes this is acceptable, as long as you disclose who you are and respect the established norms of the community you are entering.
"Having a fake conversation with yourself is disingenuous and a little sad and, more likely than not, it will come across that way," he says. "It's not that hard to listen into a community and then develop an authentic and straightforward approach."
Buying friends
Brisbane-based uSocial.net is one of only a few companies in the
world that will admit to selling lists of followers on social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter, which companies can then use to market to. (Founder Leon Hill also did not respond to our questions in time for deadline.)
"Didn't we stop doing this in primary school?" says Lyons. "Anyone resorting to this should simply be fired - the goal of business is to sell more stuff to more people, more often and for more margin (thanks Mark Neely). I fail to see how buying a list of uninterested, disengaged ‘friends' works towards that goal."
Nett had to convince Pesce that people actually did this before he would respond.
"Money can't buy you love," he says.
"It can't buy you friends, either. Simple as that. Connections predicated on cash are not the same as those drawn from the bonds of affinity. What you've got there is not a social network. It's something else. That something else might still be useful - time will tell. But you're not being sold a social network." #
