Have been researching more on the business side of social media due to a recent project and it seems really challenging to wrap the space so I am keen to share with you the thought process.
- Social media, like all media, is a medium for people to connect
- Social media is defined as digital medium that allows people to distribute information to one another or to many in a low-cost, parallel distributed way (i.e. once a message is sent, it can easily be cascaded and spread out)
- Human beings intrinsically connect to satisfy their emotional and social needs, and seek empathy when something elicit their emotional response (e.g. fall in/out of love, winning a competition, had a bad day at work, best friends getting married, stress of moving homes etc)
- Just like it is comfortable to watch episodes of Friends where it feels like people you knew all along are there with you, Facebook/Twitter or even your old school emails provide you with a digital venue to meet and greet and connect with people that you like (hence interested in what they are up to)
- Social media, hence, is an extension or convenience for us to connect, just like a community cafe in the town where you read newspaper and get greeted by familiar faces on Sunday mornings
- Social media also provides ample information for people to compete and distribute their achievements (linkedin profiles) for social capital gain (oh I know this person who can help our company does that), but at the same time can back fire as a medium on ego-stroking oneself (e.g. facebook updates on how someone bought another race car with photos etc..)
Now the business side is what boggles me.
- Marketing sees that when there’s something that everybody looks at and ‘ENGAGEs’ with, it is a channel (the ‘billboards’ where they can make a lot of money in getting people to notice and buy a product)
- Marketing sees that ’social media’ is one of these venues
- Now how does marketing ‘capitalises’ and ‘leverages’ social capital?
Here I hope we can take a step back and look at the human side of social media. If your product helps me connect and share my feelings/thinking (e.g. Wordpress), I would genuinely really like you and I would spread the word for you when someone asks me what blogging platform I recommend. Or if my good friend develops an iPhone app that rocks, I would gladly review the app and put some good words (genuine, of course) in the app store, not because I am doing that for you per se, but if I find something useful, I would want to share and help other people find the same thing too. But if the app sucks, I would help my friend to improve by giving him offline recommendations because I know online reputation counts.
Now what I am not sure is if a big brand comes along and ask me to re-skin my blog to promote their brand so that my visitors would constitute their ‘page impressions’. This is where traditionally marketing having a hard time to understand. Social media is NOT a traditional billboard. It is an intimate part of my daily life. Imagine if you are a new father/mother, you won’t ‘brand’ your kid with Pampers outfit to promote the brand, but if Pampers works really well for your child’s skin, you would naturally recommend it to other parents (whether via social media or just a simple chat over coffee).
In a nutshell, social media allows users to get their words out fast and more exponentially, but ultimately your product needs to deliver. Get the product right, then people would do the talking for you. Social media helps getting the words out faster, but that’s both for good and for the worst.
Isofarro | 24-Aug-09 at 2:47 pm | Permalink
Skinning an independent site into an existing big brand is damaging, both to the brand and to the independent voice. It’s the perception that there is no longer independence.
One of the key aspects of social media is that recommendations are based on trust. I trust you when you recommend WordPress as a blogging platform because you believe it best meets the needs of someone who wants to blog. There is nothing out there that conflicts with that measure of trust.
If I try it and it doesn’t work out, that’s fine. It works for you, but it doesn’t work for me. (A good friend of mine often reminds me I should assume good faith – much easier to do when a blog is clearly free from corporate clutches)
However, when the recommending site is skinned to look like a recognised brand, the value of that trust is typically reduced. If that site recommends something related to that brand, which voice are they using: their own independent unfiltered voice, or the corporate voice of the brand they (in some form) ‘represent’.
Every opinion becomes measured against the visible branding. And I feel that stops people seeing a rich unedited voice of an individual, and dumbs it down to ‘yet another corporate astro-turfing’.
The integrity of a blog relies on it also being perceived as being independent. A brand that wants to skin an independent blog in its own likeness dilutes the perceived independence – no matter what the contract between the blog and the brand says. It’s the perception of collusion that’s damaging.
Some people can succeed in being objective about their associated brands even when they are part of that brand. Jon Udell is one person who comes to mind as an example.
On the flip side is the TechCrunch-esque dogma that an employee of a company speaks for that company even if the blog is clearly identified as not being part of that brand and contains just personal opinion of that individual. Extreme.
It also comes down to personal integrity, which you have in spades. The people who know you will be able to look past the brand skinning. It’s the ones who don’t know you, they’ll perceive you as representing the brand, and speaking as part of that brand.
It is a difficult road. Sometimes the easiest option is not to travel that road.
Mike.
cathyma | 24-Aug-09 at 4:23 pm | Permalink
NO don’t worry I’m NOT going to skin my blog!
The thing is though, there are tech bloggers who work so hard in building their brand and their loyal readership (hence trust with the readers), with so much time and dedication being injected, it would only seem fair if they can also make a living out of it. But we both agree that they are respected because of the impartiality and the passion, and once money is involved both seem to get convoluted.
I love Yochai Benkler’s metaphor – Commons-based peer product works because people do not need monetary incentives – in fact, it can be more counter-productive. Just like going to over to a friend who cooks for you and you present a cheque at the end of the dinner. There are things in life that money can’t buy, nor can it measure. Hard for business to work with it.
Isofarro | 25-Aug-09 at 5:01 pm | Permalink
It would be brilliant for people to be able to make a living doing something they are passionate about. And Yochai Benkler is spot on.
I appreciate Doc Searles’ view that there’s money to be made because of blogs, not with them. Generally, the conversation around monetising blogs spends time in adverts and it’s related business marketing activity. Being compensated for blogging.
Doc’s take is the other way around. Blogs expose the talent and expertise of the writer, and that opens up opportunities – like consulting for a business that wants more expertise in a subject area. The blog is indirect in these cases, but still a crucial part of the ‘acquiring of wealth’ process.
It’s like the blog is a resume. No-one will pay for a resume, but it creates an opportunity to be hired because of what’s in the resume.
The closer to the real social presence on the web, the more useful a living breathing blog is than a resume. Particularly if an organisation is looking for someone with the practical demonstrable skills, rather than ‘have the degree’.
On the idea of businesses wanting to work with bloggers – that’s a difficult topic indeed. My first question is why would a business want to do it? What do they really want?
Get their name out there? Build great products.
Get those great products better recognised? Build good relationships with bloggers, and show them why your products are great. But don’t expect/demand/insist on blog coverage.
Brand awareness: it’s either in aggressively in your face all the time, or it respects my attention and opinion. Or somewhere in between. I know where on that scale I’d want a brand to be.
Nokia Booklet. What an awesome sounding netbook. 12 hour battery life, 3G, 10″ screen – that’s relevant to my interests. I’m already more excited than I should be for a product that isn’t on the shelves yet.
Tycoonism “Good communication is as stimulating as black coffee and just as hard to sleep after.” « Mr. Tycoon | The Wealth Architect | 31-Aug-09 at 7:53 pm | Permalink
[...] The human side of social media (cathyma.com) [...]
Human Capital Edition’s Did you know 2009 (or the world has changed) « Fredzimny's Blog | 04-Oct-09 at 10:51 pm | Permalink
[...] The human side of social media (cathyma.com) Tags: Business, Change, Leadership, Making sense of leadership, Transition, Trends, Vision, Ways of Seeing [...]