Let's Get Over Who 'Owns' Social Media

Leaders Should Be Chosen Based on Talent and Experience, Not Area of Practice

Posted by Chris Perry on 05.07.09 @ 10:15 AM

Chris Perry

Two strangers are talking at a bar when the topic turns to movies. One guy becomes excited when asked if he saw a particular film, and begins blaming "casting missteps," "a jumbled story arc" and "blind spots in the character development."

The other guy nodded.

After carrying on for 10 minutes, the guy listening observed, "I'm impressed. You sure know a lot of about movies."

"Well, I should hope so," exclaimed the talker. "I'm a movie critic and have my own movie website. You seem to like movies, what do you do?"

"I directed that movie."

Social media circles are full of critics, many angling to do more directing themselves. This analogy is important, given the conversation around traditional media, marketing and the subject du jour, social media. As the online conversation rages on, the subject increasingly involves the question of who "owns" it. The question speaks volumes for how shallow and self-serving the dialogue has become.

Let's get real. No one owns it. No one company, no one specialty, no one individual has all the answers to address the fundamental changes taking place. The changes are too sweeping, too fast moving, too complex for anyone to talk in absolutes. We're still in the early stages of a media disruption that affects marketing communications in ways yet be fully understood.

That said, assume that within all companies every function will become more digitized, socialized and, dare I say, integrated. Social and digital communications practices are being applied to every traditional function across the enterprise. It's happening with varying degrees of sophistication, through marketing products and services, serving customers, working with the press or communicating with employees. Members of ad agencies, PR firms, interactive agencies and new specialty shops, working side-by-side with the client counterparts, are increasingly focused on this work. We all have a significant role to play in defining new processes and campaigns suited for the times.

While no one can own it, we all now have equal opportunity to lead. As a working member of a PR firm I know from deep, direct experience we have a very credible claim to lead social-media efforts and new-age campaigns. My counterparts in other ad, PR and interactive agencies would argue the same. It's a part of a competitive agency dynamic. But in reality this is a secondary concern.

It's secondary because new communications programs are developed by people, not functions or agency archetype. The decision on who to lead should not be based by the practice they represent, but by the talent, experience and relevant ideas they bring to the table.

This comes from choosing people with a history of trial and error, refinement and a track record of meaningful success -- in not just executing one-off programs or product launches, but in helping complicated companies transform themselves into 21st century media-savvy organizations. It's earned based on the full faith and trust to execute what's been proposed, knowing there's a big difference between the idea of doing something and actually making it happen with measurable effect.

This transition also requires leaders with cross-company visibility as integration becomes a requirement. This remains a blind spot for a majority of mature companies and a missing link in the conversation about changes taking place. Integration doesn't come from tactical analysis, pontification or popularity within Twitter circles. It happens through those with institutional knowledge and understanding of what drives a business forward -- who know as much about what makes sense not to do as well as what to do in pursuit of reality-based objectives. It involves chipping away at and evolving complex business practices carried over from the 20th century.

Integration has long been talked about as the holy grail of brand communications. Socialization of media warrants finding it, and fast.

So while debating who owns social media makes for good copy for the pontificating class, it's not helping our clients adapt and take advantage of the great media disruption in play. To get there, clients need leaders with an equal understanding of the new means of reaching and connecting with people online and how these means can best be applied to specific needs and company norms.

As businesses seek to sort out the new-media equation, where to find these leaders should be question no. 1 on the list.

~ ~ ~
Chris Perry is exec VP-digital strategy and operations at Weber Shandwick. He oversees the firm's digital initiatives and operations and consults with and executes programs for clients including HP, Verizon, American Airlines, Standup2Cancer and CKE Restaurants, among others.

14 Comments

By MONICA | WATERTOWN, MA May 7, 2009 11:53:23 am:

While you say no one owns social media, you seem to be saying that one person with "the talent, experience and relevant ideas they bring to the table" should be anointed as leader.

I'm not sure this is realistic. The decades of false starts in integrated marketing show how hard it is to get good integration across brandng, promotion, direct marketing...and as you well know, PR is rarely in that mix to this day.

Instead, what Cymfony is finding is that there are different and distinct subsets of social media content that should be owned by different functions. Key influential bloggers should be "owned" by PR. Complaints should be owned by customer service. Understanding consumer needs and motivations should be owned by market research.

What companies need is the structure to build a centralized archive that is segmented appropriately so that the appropriate functional teams can immediately get access to the most relevant content, but can explore the entire archive as needed.

This is an important discussion. Thanks for a thoughtful article to get it kicked off!

Permalink

By JASON | FLAGSTAFF, AZ May 7, 2009 11:58:07 am:

Chris -

Great post. Extremely thoughtful, and relevant.

As one of the social media consultants that have added logs to the "who owns it" fire (http://budurl.com/socialcontrol), I agree that struggles for control are not making the work any better. But, that doesn't make them any less true.

In this economy, agencies of all stripes are looking to generate revenue from new sources. All agencies are thinking about social media as the next service line of importance. Thus, the ad agency, digital agency, PR agency are all individually in the client's ear about who should be in charge of the social media initiative.

There's no question integration is a better solution. But, that requires two things that are not present today, in large measure.

1. Clients that have enough knowledge and expertise to demand it and lead a team comprised of multiple agencies, truly working together. Most of the agencies don't really know what they are doing in social media yet, much less the client.

2. The financial health to play nicely with others. Integration - despite its benefits - means less money for each agency. Period. When agencies are laying off staff left and right, it takes a pretty special and self-less group to intentionally take less for the good of the team. For that to happen right now, see #1.

As the economy improves and clients have more social media savvy, you'll see more truly cooperative efforts. Which will be a relief, because as you adroitly point out, if anything merits cross-functional teaming, it's social media.

Thanks for the thoughtful post.

Jason Baer
www.convinceandconvert.com
@jaybaer

Permalink

By Rodney33 | FRISCO, TX May 7, 2009 12:07:41 pm:

The consumer "Owns" social media strategy, not an agency or a discipline. The better marketers understand how their consumers gather information and build trust in brands on-line, the better they will become at enhancing those experiences and adding real value that customers identify and trust.

We created a white paper, "The 9 Step Guide To Social Networking," to identify for our clients the generalities of social networking and to provide a check list for marketers to help formulate their strategy. Given the nature of Social Media, every situation is different. But being grounded in the general areas of focus, both positive and negative, is a good place to get started.

Rodney Mason, CMO
Moosylvania
The Great State Of Design
www.moosylvania.com

Permalink

By blaesch | Phoenix, AZ May 7, 2009 12:29:50 pm:

Only nerds were ever under it.

Permalink

By tillypick | Manchester, MA May 7, 2009 12:51:48 pm:

Two thoughts for clients and agencies -- one about practicality and one about the consumer.

Start with the consumer. Reflecting what Josh Bernoff from Forrester said when he launched "Groundswell", pay attention to the trends and motivations, not the mechanics (as the latter will evolve by tomorrow.) That said, somebody does need to own the consumer story. 15 years ago that was the research people rolling out analysis and reports. Today that person/team has to be versed with a much broader and more dynamic set of tools, data sources and "languages".

Re: practicality. With channels and messages blending together, everyone is opining about everything and saying they can do everything. That risks creating lots of generalists at the expense of having experts. Personal opinion is that work and outcomes suffer when that happens, so having some level of ownership, accountability and division of labor/work feels like an important practical need. No doubt the manifestation of that will vary from one business to the next.

Importantly, above the fray of the social media ownership struggle is the on-going challenge of getting a diverse group of people that work in similar spaces to effectively collaborate and pull in the same direction. Some of that will happen when they share values and feel like they're on the same team, some of that will happen when they get rewarded for doing it together.

Permalink

By sportsbizguy | NY, NY May 7, 2009 02:52:11 pm:

Many of the "talented," and "experienced," at most agencies I've worked with either missed the point of some of ours and others' social products, or were too busy expertly kitchen-sinking multiple media, and distribution channels into every campaign. Some of those very smart people sacrificed simplicity, directness, clarity of purpose, and effectiveness in the quest for "integration."

If agency cohorts have to play nice and cooperate with one another for the good of their clients, how about extending that courtesy to the companies that produce raw opportunities inside the burgeoning social fabric of websites, Blogs, tweets, email, mobile, podcasts, games, TV, Radio, web video, digital print. Consumer touch points are too fertile, numerous, and incongruous to be completely understood by any single agency or group. Small, nimble companies know more about their specific social products, opportunities and audiences than any agency-- even specialty houses-- could ever know.

David Langan
www.gcgames.com

Permalink

By bkaeppner | Cincinnati, OH May 7, 2009 04:06:14 pm:

I agree with many of the posts above, particularly those that refer to the "consumer" being the one in control. I think the better question for companies and agencies is: Who owns the 'listening' aspect of social media? While each employee has some responsibility to listen, there should be someone in charge of organizing and tailoring the approach. That is where the "talent" and "experience" factors in, since knowing how to listen to automotive-focused conversations is an entirely different skill than listening to beauty or fashion-focused ones.

Permalink

By JEFF | Oceanside, CA May 7, 2009 04:55:00 pm:

Chris:

Great piece. You're right that social media strategies, like anything we do for our clients, can run aground on the sharp edges of turf wars and "ownership." The model I recommend for most agencies is to hire an interactive sharpshooter with proven results--and a clear plan for bringing you immediate and recurring revenue, including, btw, detailed pricing--whose proven track record also includes (sometimes exclusively) "traditional." It's easy to find former IT outsourcing shops now magically repositioned as web 2.0 experts, former gamers and others whose theme song is, "Traditional advertising/marketing is dead; everything that happened before 2009 is irrelevant." The tougher task, but the right one, is to find a savvy professional with deep background in the business who can also go toe-to-toe with the social-is-everything camp when you're pitching for new business. Someone with an eye for the optimal marketing mix that now includes interactive. Have that person work closely with creative, media and account teams to capture the social media know-how that already exists in your shop...while doing the heavy lifting that, frankly, no one on your current team has the time to do.

Jeff Cotrupe
CEO: MarketPOWER, LLC
http://marketpowerLLC.com
http://twitter.com/marketpowerLLC

Permalink

By dbulmer | Palo Alto, CA May 7, 2009 05:37:37 pm:

Great post! I agree with you.

There is so much hype about social media right now. The reality, as you correctly call out, is that Web 2.0 technologies and social media strategies have broad impact on all areas of marketing and communications efforts (and then some).

It is the responsibility for all marketing and communications professionals and executives to understand the tools and dynamics of this phenomena and how it impacts their existing programs, activities, and relationships (internal and external). Many people look at social media as a silver bullet approach to solving all problems. This is were (in my opinion) why many initiatives fail.

I read a great quote by the CTO of Yahoo where he said that at Yahoo they look at social media as a dimension rather than a destination. This is so true.

Social media has great relevance and impact to all facets of marketing, communications, and business development. From my perspective, the key to success is to to incorporate social media strategies with a purpose (purpose driven approach) and understand how it can compliment and extend existing programs and solve specific problems within the business - be it communications, marketing, customer support, product development, internal communications, etc. It really is a strategy rather than a discipline in my opinion that marketing, communication and business professionals need to understand.

Again, great post!

Don Bulmer
Vice President Global Communications
SAP
http://everydayinfluence.typepad.com

Permalink

By johnhorniblow | Blonay May 8, 2009 03:13:42 am:

Chris I can't agree with you more. Who owns the social web isn't really a big question. In the many communities the ownership or even the behaviors in that social community are often dictated by the community itself. The community owns the community, the community polices itself and protects itself, and everybody in the community shares a democratic principle of ownership and inclusion. My observation of inter-communications on many niche, fan and strong communities is that there can be a point of self regulation, where the community members dictate what sorts of behaviour are acceptable, what tone of discussion is acceptable and will pull other members in the community into line or reject them if they feel they are being antisocial or unfair in the context of that community's voice.

In the community or social media world its the consumer that has the power or the onwership by virtue of being involved and sharing their voice and ideas. What it does is really raise the question "who owns the community's brand"? In the Social media world its definately the consumer who owns the brand. Even real world (non virtual brands) are often owned in the mind of the consumer, despite what their manufacturers, FMCG brand managers might believe otherwise, and the consumers non acceptance of product changes or variations often causes dramatic failures for brands. A brand is more than just a product. Coca Cola's release of New Coke in 1985 floundered as a failure as Coca Cola forgot what its core brand stood for and thought that taste was the was only factor consumers cared about. Its research failed to highlight that Coke consumers had a deep and abiding emotional bond to the "Real Thing" and launched a new formulated Coke. The public basically boycotted the new product and the company had ceased production of the old product causing a huge and costly problem for the company. The company had to revert back to the old formula.

For example Facebook has become the greatest facilitators of human conversations, its building itself as a brand based on emotional bonds and trust in a shell of social , web 2.0 services. Facebook's recent announcement that Facebook users had voted to back changes which give them control over data and content they post on the site didn't surprise me. The consumer/community had spoken, the company had to listen or risk massive consumer backlash and possible demise.

Where it almost went wrong was to not listen to the true voice of its consumer base and continue to pursue a path of proprietary ownership of all and everybody's personal content, thoughts and conversations when many complained or threatened to leave the service. In this case Facebook the brand, not the service, is wholly owned by the consumer base it serves.

Permalink

By Helenanm | Oslo May 8, 2009 04:47:29 am:

If you want to build a house, you probably won't consult your handy-man, you consult your engineer. Similarly, you shouldn't let your web design agency to lay out you social media strategy – you need someone with a holistic approach to communications as a part of corporate strategy, someone who has competence and experience in the area, and who also understands the difference between social and traditional media.

In order to think digitally integrated, you have to be able to connect the dots between your company, its stakeholders (whether legitimate or latent) and the psychology of their usage of various social media tools. You would probably need communication background to do so comprehensively.

Another, and maybe one of the most important reasons for why it does matter 'who owns' social media – is ethics. Communication professionals are trained in ethical conduct; we are aware of our power as persuaders and are taught not to misuse it. This is not to say it never happens, it surely does, but at least we know the clear line between what's ethically acceptable and what's not.

Mistakes made by brands in social media are costly, and might even be fatal. It's only reasonable to get a communication professional to help you navigate in a new terrain.

Permalink

By craigcooper | craigcooper.com, NY May 8, 2009 12:09:32 pm:

Whether it's around the very first campfire or on the latest fashionable social media sensation, it's just people doing what people have always done: yapping.

And as always, people are more interested in yapping themselves than in listeing to whatever it is marketers are yapping about.

That's my yap.

Permalink

By AuthorityNetworker | NY, NY May 8, 2009 12:58:38 pm:

It's definitely the consumers who own social media. Consumers of today want personal interactions with those they do business with before they make a buying decision. Social media marketing, which taps into a familiar concept called attraction marketing, lets you build that relationship and attract prospects who are interested in your offer. The combination of internet network marketing and social media is a perfect attraction marketing strategy to establish your presence in a number of different places on the Web and reach potential customers anywhere in the world. Traditional marketing will never be able to target as precisely as social media marketing. Just imagine the social media profits you can have in being able to recruit people from different places.

Authority Networker
http://www.authoritynetworker.com

Permalink

By garethwong | d May 8, 2009 07:36:55 pm:

raised a few interesting thoughts/aspects of the continuously changing 'social media' world.

thanks for the post.

However, the success of future media might be the new 'trusted' market place, which social media (or its future evolved re-incarnation) will /could be the enabler, but it might only be a 'phase'.. and it would be interesting to see what 'form' it takes..

even with 100% web/high speed internet/mobile access, there would still be a much smaller proportion that are 'actively' using it and even smaller percentage that are happy to 'transact' via e or m commerce..

but we are in interesting time.. and should be happy to be part of this evolution. ;-)

we can talk and talk, but lets make it happen.

Trusted social media that enable co-creation is the future.

@GarethWong

Permalink