I am currently responsible, at the ad agency I work for, for educating the agency about Social media and its commercial value. The agency is a traditional agency but recognises a need to integrate Social media into their offering.

Thanks again, your article has helped me in writing my essay for my university!

You say there is a risk in engaging with your customers on Social networks, that could not be further from the truth. The real risk is NOT engaging with your customers. Take Comcast for example, should they have had your opinion they would have continued to ignore the problems of their customers and the negative publicity they received (e.g. comcastmustdie.com). Not only would this provide further damage to their brand but it would also give their clued up competitors an opportunity to steal their customers away from them, a point you illustrated yourself “Then there are the issues of MISINFORMATION – competitors can easily poach, steal, misinform and destroy brands by merely following and getting in touch with people who follow you.” It is exactly this reason why companies MUST be present on Social networks, in order to dispell false information.

You say that the monetary value is insignificant and it is likely to be a passing fad. Twitter grew by over 400% in 2009! Furthermore the amount of money to be invested in Social media marketing is set to increase from $716 million in 2009 to more than $3.1 billion in 2014. This is an average annual growth rate of 34%.

You claim that $3 million dollars is insignificant but if you consider the amount that Dell has probably invested, I am sure their ROI will be somewhat significant. That is before you consider how much carrying out customer service on Social networks could save a company compared with a call centre.

You then state that “Customer services depts speak to customers one on one without the world watching.” The transparency of sites such as Twitter is a good thing as it makes companies accountable for the service they provide. The beauty of customer service on Twitter is that if carried out correctly the evidence is there for EVERYONE to see. One on one customer contact has allowed companies to get away with scandalous service because lets face it, who cares about one measly customer. If a company is rude or offensive to a customer on Twitter everyone will be able to see. Therefore this forces companies to treat customers with respect or they risk signing their own death warrant…..surely you must agree this is a good thing?

Nobody with any sense is suggesting that there is a big war between traditional advertising and social media. Social media marketing is purely another media channel; like TV, like print, like radio. Any company worth its salt should realise that the best possible business practice is to integrate your traditional advertising with Social media marketing. Take comparethemarket.com as a prime example, they have successfully integrated an excellent TV campaign with Social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook. The even created a comparethemeerkat.com. Now try telling them that Social networking ruined their branding, without it it is just another funny TV ad. By the way you should look up Alexsandr Orlov on Twitter, he is hilarious!

You talk about POWER, POWER, POWER and how companies need to remain “out of reach” otherwise they lose their POWER! Aaron this is the attitude companies had 100 years ago like Henry Ford “you can have any colour as long as it's black.” This elitist attitude do not work in the 21st century, marketing is now all about engaging with customers in the right enviroment, which for many people happens to be a Social network. If you ignore Social media you are only going to isolate millions of current and potential customers, hence damaging your brand!

This is not to say that Social media marketing does not bear risks, but then so does every form of media. Are you saying their is no risk involved in plugging millions into a TV ad campaign that fails miserably and only succeeds in damaging your brand?! The whole point is, like with traditional advertising, if you do not plan or make a strategy then the chances are you will fail (like Harvey Mckay said “If you fail to plan, then you plan to fail”). The same rules apply to Social media, if you go in with a lack of understand and no strategy then yes you could damage your brand, however if properly planned and managed it can become an extremely useful medium for reaching your customers and promoting your brand.

I could go on for days but as I mentioned I do have an essay to write. I was not going to post a reply initially until I read that this bizarre opinion came from someone who has “[...] an elite MBA in Finance & Strategy with International Marketing and have worked for numerous Fortune 500 Co., as well as run an advertising agency,” and you are writing a book. I find some of this extremely hard to believe considering how close-minded your opinions are…let me guess you are a devout Christian too?

To be perfectly honest your whole post just smacks of someone who is trying to sell a book they are writing, you even said this yourself “[my in-dept thesis] is controversial but highly engaging and interesting.” Well let me tell you something, Warren Buffet you aint! You will not become famous for predicting the Social media bust, simply because it is not going to happen. Embrace change Aaron, it is inevitable.

Regards,

Alan

p.s. I found it highly ironic that you repeatedly misspelt the word 'intelligently'…I think it speaks volumes! I wouldn't normally pick someone up on spelling, as I am sure I made a few mistakes myself. However, the difference is I am not trying to sell my own book. I am merely a hero writing an essay for Uni!

Booker!

Oliver–I completely agree with your positive comments about the benefits SMM can have on spreading news FAST in terms of say, a change of exam location for students or a police warning or charitable drives or networking. However, please note I am writing these comments with respect to LONG TERM brand reputation and not short-term news. NEWS (NORTH EAST WEST SOUTH) moves fast and is forgotten rapidly – social media marketing does not help brands build long-term solid reputation bases, it disintegrates a brands message across multiple platforms mainly because of multiple external and internal input—the loss of control of the message is not a blessing, it is a curse. Then there are the issues of MISINFORMATION – competitors can easily poach, steal, misinform and destroy brands by merely following and getting in touch with people who follow you. Corporations can set up 'FAKE' accounts or they can set up individual accounts and then start vindictive campaigns with your user lists in full view. Litigation is of little use if they can shut down their accounts in seconds and hire people in China to keep setting up FAKE accounts and destroying brands—the same vindictive libel behaviours CANNOT occur in traditional media as the perpetrator would be sued for libel.

Now Jason, I absolutely agree with you, and I too have heard about the revenue generated by SMM for Dell, Comcast, et al., however, these amounts are TINY! $3 million US is a drop in the ocean and may impress a work at home mom/ soccer mom, or an individual starting a home business, but please note I am writing about BRANDS and corporations—not individuals. The ROI of even $5 million US for the amount of time, effort, energy, and potential risk to a brand is very poor indeed. If the revenue from SMM was $100m then I would perhaps alter my views.

I know I am being very controversial about not agreeing with the masses of people that are embracing social media–however, during the .com boom, the wise sage Warren Buffet disagreed with the masses of investment professionals around the world who were jumping on the bandwagon regarding the dot com boom – Warren Buffet never invested even one dime in the tech stocks of the dot com boom and he predicted the crash and it happened. Now, to give you a bit about my background, I have an elite MBA in Finance & Strategy with International Marketing and have worked for numerous Fortune 500 Co., as well as run an advertising agency. This does NOT make me an expert of any sort, but I do have a deep understanding of business and branding and corporate functions. It appears EVERYONE is trying to get something from nothing—this attitude in society caused the .com BUST—where investment bankers and MBAs and private equity firms were throwing money at any .com startup even if they had NO IDEA of HOW or WHEN they would generate revenue. The same attitude caused the current credit crunch crisis—trying to generate money out of nothing—thin air by living on CREDIT and not knowing HOW to pay it back. Similarly, SMM is free and people are trying to make it generate millions—there is a fundamental flaw in this business model that people cannot see. The main problem with the SMM model is the very nature of the fact that it allows everyone to comment on anything and everything—there is no longer any strategy or coherence in the message as you cannot coherently control millions of individuals with millions of opposing views.

SMM can:
1) Disintegrate a strong internal corporate culture by giving individuals too much power. Governments are elected by people to RUN the people and country to prevent ANARCHY! If you give PEOPLE all the power to have a referendum on EVERYTHING then you ruin the country and cause CHAOS. Similarly, if you give CUSTOMERS all the power to dictate what a brand should be, the multiple opposing views will cause brand anarchy and OPENLY annoy and anger people around the world at a rapid pace. Furthermore, it will cause employees to openly oppose internal corporate culture, openly challenge management strategy, cause openly shared silos and rifts and disintegrate corporate culture, which in turn can affect the brands values by affecting customer service, employee morale etc. This goes a LOT deeper than the internet ‘guru’/ work at home mom/ soccer mom mentality. SMM can damage brands beyond repair.

2) SMM is extremely time consuming and generates trickles of revenue compared to traditional main-stream media. SATELLITE, TV, RADIO, MAJOR NEWS/ MAGS, INTERNET ADS—these are the channels that even though are saturated, they have more consistency and enable more control over your message. The SECOND you hand over your brand message to the masses of un-qualified ‘brand specialists’ AKA the public, then you are going to cause chaos, confusion and mayhem. Imagine if the government said tomorrow, we are resigning and would like YOU the people to run the country! IT would end in utter chaos because people look up to LEADERS, but if you have NO BRAND LEADER and just millions of ‘followers’ trying to dictate what a brand should be—it makes millions of leaders, which causes disintegration and damage.

3) RISK! SMM can produce unprecedented amounts of risk to a brand. Not only is there the direct threat from competitors, and dissatisfied customers, but there also is the threat of data protection violations which can cause people to lose trust.

If you REALLY THINK about WHY in the past the peasants WORSHIPED ROYALTY, or in the present day WHY the masses WORSHIP CELEBRITIES—it is because of the perceived POWER! It is because they are JUST OUT OF REACH, it is because they cannot be touched—BUT—the second you remove that perception and you say, hey WE ARE JUST COMMON LIKE YOU—then the POWER goes out of the window… and with it goes the perception of being ELITE—and when that happens no one will want your brand anymore. If ROLEX advertised on the back of milk cartons no one would pay $5000 for it. THE CHANNEL is just as important as the message—and if you ‘advertise’ using SMM you can damage brand reputation.

All this is just the tip of the iceberg—I have written an in-depth thesis about all this backed up with evidence—it is controversial but highly engaging and interesting. Thanks for your comments and I hope this opens up a huge debate because I would love to learn from everyone out there too. Thanks!

Oliver–I completely agree with your positive comments about the benefits SMM can have on spreading news FAST in terms of say, a change of exam location for students or a police warning or charitable drives or networking. However, please note I am writing these comments with respect to LONG TERM brand reputation and not short-term news. NEWS (NORTH EAST WEST SOUTH) moves fast and is forgotten rapidly – social media marketing does not help brands build long-term solid reputation bases, it disintegrates a brands message across multiple platforms mainly because of multiple external and internal input—the loss of control of the message is not a blessing, it is a curse. Then there are the issues of MISINFORMATION – competitors can easily poach, steal, misinform and destroy brands by merely following and getting in touch with people who follow you. Corporations can set up 'FAKE' accounts or they can set up individual accounts and then start vindictive campaigns with your user lists in full view. Litigation is of little use if they can shut down their accounts in seconds and hire people in China to keep setting up FAKE accounts and destroying brands—the same vindictive libel behaviours CANNOT occur in traditional media as the perpetrator would be sued for libel.

Now Jason, I absolutely agree with you, and I too have heard about the revenue generated by SMM for Dell, Comcast, et al., however, these amounts are TINY! $3 million US is a drop in the ocean and may impress a work at home mom/ soccer mom, or an individual starting a home business, but please note I am writing about BRANDS and corporations—not individuals. The ROI of even $5 million US for the amount of time, effort, energy, and potential risk to a brand is very poor indeed. If the revenue from SMM was $100m then I would perhaps alter my views.

I know I am being very controversial about not agreeing with the masses of people that are embracing social media–however, during the .com boom, the wise sage Warren Buffet disagreed with the masses of investment professionals around the world who were jumping on the bandwagon regarding the dot com boom – Warren Buffet never invested even one dime in the tech stocks of the dot com boom and he predicted the crash and it happened. Now, to give you a bit about my background, I have an elite MBA in Finance & Strategy with International Marketing and have worked for numerous Fortune 500 Co., as well as run an advertising agency. This does NOT make me an expert of any sort, but I do have a deep understanding of business and branding and corporate functions. It appears EVERYONE is trying to get something from nothing—this attitude in society caused the .com BUST—where investment bankers and MBAs and private equity firms were throwing money at any .com startup even if they had NO IDEA of HOW or WHEN they would generate revenue. The same attitude caused the current credit crunch crisis—trying to generate money out of nothing—thin air by living on CREDIT and not knowing HOW to pay it back. Similarly, SMM is free and people are trying to make it generate millions—there is a fundamental flaw in this business model that people cannot see. The main problem with the SMM model is the very nature of the fact that it allows everyone to comment on anything and everything—there is no longer any strategy or coherence in the message as you cannot coherently control millions of individuals with millions of opposing views.

SMM can:
1) Disintegrate a strong internal corporate culture by giving individuals too much power. Governments are elected by people to RUN the people and country to prevent ANARCHY! If you give PEOPLE all the power to have a referendum on EVERYTHING then you ruin the country and cause CHAOS. Similarly, if you give CUSTOMERS all the power to dictate what a brand should be, the multiple opposing views will cause brand anarchy and OPENLY annoy and anger people around the world at a rapid pace. Furthermore, it will cause employees to openly oppose internal corporate culture, openly challenge management strategy, cause openly shared silos and rifts and disintegrate corporate culture, which in turn can affect the brands values by affecting customer service, employee morale etc. This goes a LOT deeper than the internet ‘guru’/ work at home mom/ soccer mom mentality. SMM can damage brands beyond repair.

2) SMM is extremely time consuming and generates trickles of revenue compared to traditional main-stream media. SATELLITE, TV, RADIO, MAJOR NEWS/ MAGS, INTERNET ADS—these are the channels that even though are saturated, they have more consistency and enable more control over your message. The SECOND you hand over your brand message to the masses of un-qualified ‘brand specialists’ AKA the public, then you are going to cause chaos, confusion and mayhem. Imagine if the government said tomorrow, we are resigning and would like YOU the people to run the country! IT would end in utter chaos because people look up to LEADERS, but if you have NO BRAND LEADER and just millions of ‘followers’ trying to dictate what a brand should be—it makes millions of leaders, which causes disintegration and damage.

3) RISK! SMM can produce unprecedented amounts of risk to a brand. Not only is there the direct threat from competitors, and dissatisfied customers, but there also is the threat of data protection violations which can cause people to lose trust.

If you REALLY THINK about WHY in the past the peasants WORSHIPED ROYALTY, or in the present day WHY the masses WORSHIP CELEBRITIES—it is because of the perceived POWER! It is because they are JUST OUT OF REACH, it is because they cannot be touched—BUT—the second you remove that perception and you say, hey WE ARE JUST COMMON LIKE YOU—then the POWER goes out of the window… and with it goes the perception of being ELITE—and when that happens no one will want your brand anymore. If ROLEX advertised on the back of milk cartons no one would pay $5000 for it. THE CHANNEL is just as important as the message—and if you ‘advertise’ using SMM you can damage brand reputation.

All this is just the tip of the iceberg—I have written an in-depth thesis about all this backed up with evidence—it is controversial but highly engaging and interesting. Thanks for your comments and I hope this opens up a huge debate because I would love to learn from everyone out there too. Thanks!

As much as I agree with some of your points about dodgy e-books and opportunists being very active in this space, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are plenty of people working in and with social media who are seeing real results for their businesses (and personally as well). Not hype, mind you. Not “make believe.” Real results.

For some, those results are measured in revenue. For others, cost savings/budget efficiencies. Giving a voice to customers, helping information spread across markets, connecting people with each other is absolutely changing the way we live our lives, make purchasing decisions and communicate with each other.

Social Media is now helping the CDC track outbreaks in real time. Police departments are using Social Media to warn communities about potential dangers, and in some cases quickly capture dangerous suspects. Students are using Social Media to form virtual study groups. Charities from around the world are using social media to bring awareness about their causes to the world faster and more cost-effectively than ever before. I could go on for paragraphs, but you get the point.

Are there hacks in this space? You bet. Are there people just here to make a quick buck while they can? Yep. But they're the exception rather than the rule.

This isn't a question of traditional vs. social. Neither wins. Traditional marketing alone isn't really all that effective anymore. Too many channels. Too many filters. Too much noise. Likewise, social alone is limited. It's opt-in. It hasn't scaled yet. It's very difficult to make it work quickly. However, the smart business combines the two as needed. This is about integration, not exclusion. Though they are very different, operationally, traditional and social need to come together. Anyone who doesn't see that (and rejects that notion) is doomed to fail as a marketing professional.