This Social-Media Kegger Not All It's Cracked Up to Be

Have Fun, Make Connections, but Some Moderation Is Called for

Posted by Doug DeGrood on 05.20.09 @ 04:54 PM

Doug deGrood

I remember my first beer.

Remember your first beer? Remember how dangerously cool it was? With zero inhibitions, it was like a whole new world opened up to you. But then you woke up and realized -- as you did your penance at the porcelain altar -- that this new world, while fun at the time, wasn't all it was cracked up to be.

I was reminded of this the other day as I logged onto my Facebook page. In some ways, I think we've all been a little over-served on the social-media hootch.

Don't worry -- this isn't going to turn into some prudish rant about the inherent evil of social networking. (Although, as a small-business owner, I am concerned about the number of people social "not-working.") Or that social media doesn't have value.

So what's my point? OK, I'll just come out and say it: I, Doug deGrood, 44-year-old advertising copywriter, husband, father of three kids (aged 13, 11 and 9) -- who doesn't totally embarrass them with his middle-aged un-hip-ness -- believe that social media, while fun, isn't the marketing end-all that some people are making it out to be.

Phew. There, I said it. Sober even.

WAIT! Let me finish. That's not to say I don't believe Twitter presents a potentially valuable marketing opportunity at this very moment in time. It does. Or at least it has for some. (That's also not to say I don't believe there's hay to be made with web-based, mobile and e-mail marketing. There most decidedly is. But those are different from pure social-media plays.)

I'm no economist, but my understanding is, in order for a medium to have commercial value, it needs to be, well, commercial. Hey, this is America, baby, that's how the game is played.

Who knows, maybe some really smart person will figure out how to open the revenue floodgates for Facebook, et al. Currently, the only thing they're generating is more users, which requires more bandwidth, which requires more capital, which, at some point (soon?) will require a boatload of ad revenue to satisfy the VC folks who ponied up the money for this worldwide digital kegger in the first place.

In the current social-media groundswell, there are an awful lot of babies being thrown out with the analog bathwater. I can't be the only person in ad land who cringes every time I hear phrases like:

"Television is dead." (Funny, I could have sworn my kids were watching "American Idol" last night on some appliance that vaguely resembled a TV.)
"Marketing is no longer a one-way conversation; it's a dialogue."
"Brands don't belong to companies; they belong to consumers."

(Note to Google: Award a Caribbean cruise to the 1 millionth person to use any of these phrases.)

I get it, really I do. And I acknowledge the truth behind these statements. But still, a little moderation is in order here. This is not on par with the 15th-century intelligentsia proclaiming the world is no longer flat.

For the record, consumers have always had "relationships" with brands. And we've always had means to communicate with them, and share our passion or disdain for them with others. It's just a lot easier now. And faster. But on the other hand -- THIS JUST IN -- not every member of the human race wants to have a relationship with the company that manufactures his or her toothpaste. Freaky, I know, but true.

In the end, doesn't it still come down to an idea? I'll answer my own rhetorical question: Yes, it does. And ideas don't go out of fashion. Only the delivery vehicles do.

And so 'round and 'round and 'round she goes, where it stops, nobody knows. ("From alcohol analogies, to gambling, this deGrood really has it in for the vices.") The fact is, it doesn't stop. There's always something new and different just around the corner.

And hopefully better. And if it isn't, well, at least there's still plenty of beer left in the world to help us cope with the uncertainty of it all.

~ ~ ~
Doug deGrood is creative director of Gabriel deGrood Bendt, Minneapolis.

34 Comments

By kcvideo | Saratoga Springs, NY May 20, 2009 06:30:58 pm:

Just for the record, I found this opinion piece while doing a keg stand at that raging Twitter party.

Permalink

By shannonwentz | CALGARY, AB May 20, 2009 06:36:59 pm:

I agree with alot of what you've said, however I think you're missing a key element to social media. Social allows the consumer to engage with your brand on their terms. It's more of a pull strategy, whereas tv, magazine, etc is all a push from us marketers to the consumer. The fact that they choose to engage with you makes it much more relevant to them and they typically spend more time with your brand.

Permalink

By Techn0tic | Stockport May 20, 2009 07:01:24 pm:

Hey, this AIN'T America, baby - this is a worldwide party.

Like the first commenter, I found this post through Twitter. I can understand your point of view. There are a lot of people proclaiming social media to be the killer of everything that has gone before and I agree that it's an addition rather than a replacement. It seems to be a human trait to decide that each new form of communication will kill off the previous one and yet even in our electronic, digital, social media world, people are still sending letters and speaking face-to-face with each other (how quaint).

Personally I'm still dubious whether "brands" CAN succeed in social media without visibly real people, communicating on their behalf.

Perhaps the proclaiming value in the concept of real people interacting, IS on a par with the 15th century intelligencia proclaiming that the world is not flat - given that the idea of a spherical earth had been around for about 2000 years by that point anyway.

Permalink

By Rialta | Knoxville, TN May 20, 2009 11:00:13 pm:

Two thumbs up.

Here is the other phrase that kills me: "social media needs to be at the center of every marketing strategy." I am sick so of the mindless euporhia surrounding a 140-character message.

Didn't ANYBODY pay attention to the Internet bust of 1999?

I have several articles on my blog on the subject of applying business sense to social media. You might enjoy reading them.

http://schaefersolutions.blogspot.com.

You have a new fan.

Mark Schaefer
Executive Director
Schaefer Marketing Solutions
www.businessesGROW.com

Permalink

By nakedpizza | new orleans, LA May 21, 2009 09:24:42 am:

Awe shucks. Its gonna be ok. don't fight it.

Permalink

By nickkinports | Chicago, IL May 21, 2009 09:32:04 am:

Of course social media isn't the end-all of advertising. As a consumer, there are a lot of companies in my daily life that I never want to have social contact with, and that's fine.

What isn't fine, however, is writing off the idea. As a part of an agency, I would never let any of my clients off the hook on connecting more intimately with customers; it just wouldn't be very responsible in the modern day. The problem that requires a lot of discipline and a great set of processes to solve is that of integration.

Finding the appropriate mix of traditional media, social, and other types for each client is a challenge and a delight. I agree on the fundamentals in Doug's article, but the concept needs to be extended a little further.

Nicholas Kinports
Digital Integration Manager
Maddock Douglas

Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/admaven
Blog: http://admaven.blogspot.com
|

Permalink

By kyledavid | Allentown, PA May 21, 2009 10:50:51 am:

I couldn't disagree more. Surveys show how personal these tweets, facebook posts, and groups are to their users. Just look at some of the recent Pew studies on the election. People have replaced brand identity with their facebook/myspace/twitter identity. Granted it is not a medium for all advertisers to leverage (i.e. toothpaste), but it's a wet dream for fashion brands to do market research. I would say that this kegger is just getting started.

Kyle David
http://www.aircheese.com/blog

Permalink

By tkmiller67 | Greensboro, NC May 21, 2009 11:15:24 am:

I think as a brand, just like any other ad medium, you need to look at how social networking fits your strategy and for some, it is a windfall. Music artists, TV networks (yes, I said it, TV isn't dead!) clothing retailers (some, not all) will benefit greatly from having a MySpace page and maybe MySpace should ask them for $$ in order to "advertise" there, premium "space" offering, something like that? But let's "face" it, Serenity Pads don't need MySpace. It really boils down to plain old common sense when choosing social media, the same as with any media.

Permalink

By JCBodary | Beverly Hills, MI May 21, 2009 11:21:51 am:

As a copywriter who is even a little older than you, Doug, I continue to believe that marketers' goals haven't really changed:

They want to stand out from the crowd
They want positive word-of-mouth advertising (conversation?) from their users

What has changed are the channels they're using to reach those goals. Today, marketers are pursuing search rankings to stand out from the crowd. And they're trying to figure out how to use social media to generate the positive brand/product "buzz" that's the holy grail for all marketers.

As you say, what's somewhat disturbing is that I don't see a lot of discussion about what constitutes great creative within these channels, or about how to support/communicate a unique selling proposition in 140 characters, or about how these channels might best be integrated with more traditional channels to support the goals of visibility and word-of-mouth. (Maybe I'm not looking in the right places ...)

Thanks, however, for confirming my suspicions that mass quantities of beer will help make sense of it all.

Permalink

By Mike | Portland, OR May 21, 2009 11:56:42 am:

Yes. You are technically correct. And the air we breathe is mostly nitrogen, which is of no real value to us, so why the big deal about air?

Great response, Naked Pizza. And I love what you guys have been doing with twitter. Fantastic application of it for your own benefits -- which help you commercially, but also build relationships with consumers.

The issue right now with social media is that so many people simply just don't grasp it fully. It isn't the center of a marketing strategy, but it is (as one commenter indicated) more of a pull strategy that does create dialogue and two-way conversations with consumers. We at ID Branding believe that people are looking for brands that share the same values they do. Brands they can believe in. Brands that have meaning. Social media/networks/communities are a fantastic way to engage with these people.

Permalink

By Dan | Boca Raton, FL May 21, 2009 12:23:58 pm:

I agree with the "everything in moderation" notion as it relates to the overall media mix very much, Doug. The problem is that some people went so hog-wild recommending certain social media tools (mainly because they were new) before thinking about how those tools fit into their client's brand strategy. Social media itself isn't to blame for that. A poor understanding of the medium is.

I think anyone who says social media 1) always needs to be at the center of a marketing strategy or 2) is the end-all in place of other tactics is missing the point of this medium completely. Social media can be an excellent complement to other existing tactics, including traditional advertising, PR and more. As Nicholas points out in his post, we owe it to our clients to explore the avenues that connect more intimately with customers. OK, so let's say toothpaste is or isn't the perfect fit for social media. But honestly, so what? Is TV or radio or print or direct mail or any other media the perfect fit for every client? No. That's why we don't recommend them in those situations. It doesn't mean we condemn them as a failure just because they aren't appropriate in certain client situations, either -- which some people are mistakenly doing via across-the-board bashings of social media as we speak.

Dan Gershenson
Creative Director
The Creative Underground
http://twitter.com/DanOnBranding

Permalink

By craigcooper | craigcooper.com, NY May 21, 2009 12:46:52 pm:

And meanwhile Billie Mays and the creepy Sham Wow guy are taking over the world.

Permalink

By jbernoff | ARLINGTON, MA May 21, 2009 01:12:26 pm:

If people are there (in social), marketers ought to be there as well.

Social has a place in the marketing plan alongside all the rest of those traditional media channels.

Calm down, you'll be fine. Remember when online was new? We heard the same stuff. It neither became irrelevant, nor took over the world. It landed in a crucial spot in the marketing plan. So will social.

Permalink

By laurieab | Port Washington, NY May 21, 2009 01:16:35 pm:

This is some of the most intelligent comments I've seen on this subject. I'll admit I'm just over 50 years old and have been in agency and client side marketing positions for over 20 years. I agree with everyone that said it's a new channel to consider in your marketing mix. It doesn't change our approach to the solving the business challenge - what are we trying to achieve, who is our target, what are their unmet needs, what are their barriers to purchase, what is our USP, where is our target consuming media (and I put social media in with all media). I have had healthy debates with perceived social media gurus about what social media is. It is a channel, it is NOT a strategy. I do think the divide on whether social media is the only way to go may be somewhat age related. Those of us who have worked in traditional media for a long time suggest it is a great new channel to consider in any campaign. To the younger advertising folks, it may be seen as the only way to go consider how they themselves consume media. The good news is that social media can be tested without huge investment.

Thanks Doug for the great read

Follow me at www.twitter.com/laurieab

Permalink

By tsmuse | Seattle, WA May 21, 2009 01:17:04 pm:

Well said. Just like swine flu and New Coke this whole social media thing has been over hyped to an almost deity-like status. It's too bad really too, because it makes so many things possible while mixing it with other media (perhaps a media boilermaker reference is in order here?) But just as I'm sure people proclaimed that radio would kill the newspapers, tv would kill the radio, and video would kill the radio star, we now KNOW that the internet will kill all of it. Except that outside of social media (which is mimicking the telephone when you really think about it) the internet so far has just been really good at pretending to be radio (podcasts, iTunes, etc), television (youTube, Hulu, etc) and newspapers (blogs). It just does all of those things faster than the original. This isn't so much a change that will kill traditional vehicles for ideas as much as it's a change that will kill the way those vehicles are sold. Like moving from monks scribing book to the printing press to desktop publishing. I don't think we'll see the death of old media, just to proliferation of it's content, delivered to one more box along the way.

Permalink

By travis.stdenis | Toronto, ON May 21, 2009 01:21:02 pm:

couldn't agree with you more. social media, while powerful, is still just another tool we marketers have. the traditional channels need to evolve (a lot) and become better, but social media isn't going to kill them off. they are still an essential part of the mix.

there's also the notion of reach (i know, old world term). are we as advertisers satisfied with just our small communities who are involved and contributing? after all, not everyone wants to be social with a company. we still need to put our brands out there in front of consumers (existing and potential) because they're vital to our continued success and existence. that's where non-social media comes in.

i did a 3 part series that addressed this very topic just this week. funny, i guess we both were getting a little tired of the 'be-all and end-all of other media' speak that's being going around.

part 1 - http://bit.ly/zbPNU
part 2 - http://bit.ly/ZVdR1
part 3 - http://bit.ly/3gpBo

travis st.denis
http://twitter.com/nightterror (don't let the name scare you off)

Permalink

By Pcambron | Syracuse, NY May 21, 2009 01:27:24 pm:

You make a few good points but fail to see the bigger one. Of course Social Media Marketing isn't an all encompassing replacement for traditional marketing. Of course there are some products that will never open up intimate conversation with consmers (i.e toothpaste example). Yes, marketers still have the same underlying goal: to connect their products with the right people.

The point is though, social media is increasingly proving itself to be the best vehicle to do that. It is hard to overstate the advantage of talking directly to consumers rather than at them. Funny how you use American Idol to defend TV advertising. Completely interactive and one of the few progams audiences still prefer to watch live. Guess where people go to talk about the show afterwards?

Permalink

By sshort | Phoenix, AZ May 21, 2009 01:30:30 pm:

I was in a meeting recently with a PR company that manages social networking sites and they said (direct quote here) "It is our viewpoint that traditional marketing is dead."

I had to laugh to myself. I recognize the merits of social networking and it simply can't be ignored as part of the marketing effort, but it's a bit presumptuous to suggest everything else goes by the wayside because we have this relatively new shiny toy that we (marketers) haven't figured out how to play with yet.

Permalink

By L. John | New York, NY May 21, 2009 02:14:46 pm:

Is this debate really needed... As I read your thoughts I couldn't help but agree with a few... I won't break them down and get as nit picky as my fellow AdAge brothers and sisters...
(On a side note - your tone could have been a little less "snarky" but thats just me)...

The point is, things are changing - plain and simple... Who's to say where this may all lead... No one's sure... Ask anyone in "The Biz" - you'll get a myriad of answers... Just re-read the post above this one...

I would say this to you - don't be so quick to discredit the evolution of human behavior...
We are animals after all - sadly more like sheep then humans (most times)... So I say - let this new phase of social-marketing-media-whatever BE... Don't get hung up on the hype and buzz-words...

Get hung-up on the data, the reach, the scale, the ROI and lastly... Look at the initial investment cost - it might surprise you...

Kind of hard to sit on the side-lines and not embrace the next phase of our industry...
Regardless of hype - The revolution will not be televised, inserted, printed or direct-mailed...

PS - I'll be keen to see how your piece trends on twitter... (( :
Please forgive any grammatical errors - I'm not a copy writer...

Tweet you later my brother @johnnyboyolive
www.olivemedia.com
john@olivemedia

Permalink

By ericadman | ATLANTA, GA May 21, 2009 02:23:21 pm:

Great piece and many great comments. All of which makes me think it won't be long til we don't talk about "social media" as "social media" anymore. It will simply go back to being digital or online media. Then eventually all digital media will be social in some way; most of it is already really. Any sort of interaction implies social and that's what the medium enables. Then comes the ultimate IP driven merge of cable TV and Internet; channels become web sites, web sites become TV, TV becomes social, etc. In the end, it's all media. Those who keep up with these changes will continue to thrive, those that don't, like those who fell behind with general online media, will eventually get left behind. But to show there's room for children of all ages in social media, I just noticed that while signing up for a slideshare account, the birthday drop down menu goes back to 1900! Could there possibly be anyone using social media today who is 109 years old? Maybe not today, but it looks like someone thinks someday there will be! @ericadman

Permalink

By lgelb | Wilmington, DE May 21, 2009 02:29:05 pm:

The peril of social or any other new media brew (to follow the kegger analogy) is most evident when the client and/or agency presumes that the medium can substitute for the message and that which informed it in yesteryear, like positioning, data and research. That presumption generates implicit messages like, "Come to Joe's Garage, the 23rd garage in Manhattan whose owner's nephew taught him how to tweet."

Since, personally, I'm not looking for brands that share my values, nor brands "to believe in," I won't presume that everyone feels that way, but, yes, some do, to varying extents and in varying categories. The point of using the word "some" is that when agencies pitch clients with mantras of "You need to be part of the conversation," said conversation may not exist, nor may it need to.

Clearly, most social network members did not join primarily to interact with brands, any more than most TVs are purchased in order to view commercials. Thus, any interaction should reflect an understanding of the brand's history and its past/present/potential stakeholders. No amount of social media insight substitutes for that understanding, and when agencies affirm that, they do both themselves and their clients a considerable service.

Permalink

By PlumbBobMR | Sacramento, CA May 21, 2009 02:40:40 pm:

Doug: as others mentioned, I found your post via twitter. Specifically Amanda Chapel (www.strumpete.com). She appears to share your opinion on W20.

I have not heard anybody say "television is dead". I have a bigger, bolder TV now then ever, and my neighbors (all of them) have better ones yet. All kinds of information being presented.

I have heard that print media is suffering. Consumers are making use of online media, which I think is a step forward. My level of due-diligence has increased 10x because I can scan reviews, scan products, compare prices. I can share ideas, just like your (Web20) blog. It turns out that with respect to marketing, utility, price and availability still rule. But I still read my local print news every day. Plus a lot of books.

For me, twitter (and Web20) is not a "marketing opportunity" so much as a communications medium. Like any other information bizarre it has opportunities for public relations and self-aggrandizement. So be it.

And by the way, I have a mobile phone app that helps consumers manage food safety issues. See http://www.agorasys.com/products.html for details.

Cheers.

Permalink

By KevinKruse | Newtown, PA May 21, 2009 02:52:32 pm:

I agree and disagree...always been word of mouth marketing, not everyone wants to friend a brand, and MySpace lead to Facebook which will lead to ???

BUT, the social web has reduced friction and eliminated geography thus the impact IS new and important. The tools will change, and they will remain tactics, not strategy.

Thanks for the piece.

Kevin Kruse
@kevinkruse

Permalink

By aboer | GREENWICH, CT May 21, 2009 03:58:29 pm:

Ten years ago I remember Tom Jermoluk from @Home talking about the world of pervasive broadband media and what it would be like. At the time, it felt like a lot of hype. Today it is reality. The social media hype is true--but won't be reality for five to ten years. Twitter is an imperfect, clunky, early adopter medium that irritates a lot of people, and will be replaced by something better. Facebook, however, is pretty darn good.

Media *will* be social/interactive. It is inevitable. Print Media will more or less disappear except for very high end marketing/content. Television will become a social, interactive, two way medium. Terrestrial and Satellite Radio will disappear, and be replaced by social, interactive, 3-G like devices that can beam services like Pandora to your car, customized to your tastes and shared with your friends.

It is all going to happen, and social media is going to be a big part of it. Some marketers/agencies will stake out a specialist position and hype it beyond belief, while other larger brands and agencies will pursue a conservative, diversified approach.

I do think you are dead wrong about people not wanting a relationship with their toothpaste. I think that is *exactly* what people want -- at some subconcious level that is what a brand IS. To wit...when a trusted brand like say Coke makes a misstep(Ie. New Coke) people get very (irrationally) emotional about it. We are a very social species, and we gravitate toward brands that make us feel good about ourselves.

And when do humans feel best? When they are recognized, communicated with, treated fairly, understood, appreciated, and feel part of a group. If your competitor toothpaste can do some of those things through social media, and you can't, your competitor will win.

Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of your life.

Permalink

By edwardboches | Boston, MA May 21, 2009 10:04:36 pm:

There's a new generation coming out of school right now. They don't even distinguish between social, general, digital, SEO or PR. It's all communication, branding, connecting. The sooner they get here and take our jobs, the sooner we can stop arguing over whether one medium matters more than the other.
@edwardboches

Permalink

By trackermo | Washington, NJ May 22, 2009 05:24:25 am:

If you aren't reaping the benefits of social networking then maybe you need a crash course in the whole concept.

Sorry, but social networking is not overt and many people miss out because they don't see the subtle connections between it. Also, because they don't understand HOW to social network online, they fail to do several things that are essential to success.

Permalink

By richardlessman | Fjandler May 22, 2009 03:09:47 pm:

Back when radio broadcasting was invented it wasn't a viable commercial medium in 1909. In fact, it took until 1927 for the current model of radio to be introduced. Nearly 40 years for the market to adopt it.

Talk about a medium that wasn't what it was cracked up to be.

Twitter is currently two years old. Facebook: four. Give them time. No medium is an instant success.

Permalink

By alexqgb | Orinda, CA May 22, 2009 04:11:09 pm:

Social media has less to do with what's on your corporate Facebook page, and more to do with what's on the NYT's front page.

Permalink

By JOvideomaker | Chico, CA May 22, 2009 06:25:16 pm:

Wow, you really touched a nerve, Doug!

I'm blown away at the number of people on all of those social sites who have so much to say about so little to so many people.. but they do. I've been ranting in our blog about the nonsensical blathering on social sites myself. (Social networks: Safe or Sane? http://videomaker.com/community/blogs/videonews/2009/05/4584-social-networks-safe-and-sane/)

But regardless of how we feel about all this twittering, the people are out there doing it, so we should take advantage of any hook we can. Like shannonwentz of Calgary said on May 20th at 06:36:59, having a presence on a social site is more of a Pull rather than a Push theory. The reader/viewer makes the choice to visit that site and interact with your post.

And just like media in the days of olde, the reader/viewer has the choice of changing the channel, turning off the device, closing the page, or engaging in our conversations. It's their choice, all we can do is make ourselves known.

As for no one really wanting to check out their favorite toothpaste or toilet paper's company site; just yesterday, I purchased a very stale box of Good & Plentys, distributed by the Hershey Candy family. I went to their website to tell them about it and felt a sense of power at being so close to the source. I even cruised around their site for awhile and found some coupons. They kept me engaged longer than expected, and that's the name of the game. All marketers and advertisers have that benefit. It's a Whole New World.

Permalink

By alex_munro | West Nyack, NY May 23, 2009 01:24:05 pm:

"In the end, doesn't it still come down to an idea?"

As a student who has recently graduated with a degree in creative advertising, this is something I had grown used to my professors saying. They, like many people in advertising, believe this is why copywriting/art directing isn't going to die. That, no matter what the medium, there will always be a need for "big ideas".

On one level they are right. There is always going to be a need for new and innovative ideas in marketing/advertising, as well as a need to hire people who can come up with them. However, the "big ideas" of the future are not going to be the same as those of advertising's past. Copywriting is reliant on the relationship of the brand talking at the consumer. The internet and social media have made this relationship irrelevant.

Why would I read or believe your ad when I can just go online and see what people are saying about the product? Even for introducing people to products, traditional advertising is becoming less relevant. I get new books recommended by Amazon, new bands on Pandora, and learn about all sorts of new products/services of interest from niche communities I am plugged into via social media. Brands still have a voice, its just not the only one anymore.

SEO, PR, social media strategy, SEM, among others are the new skills that all advertising students should be taught. The Mad Men are dead, and the internet killed them.

Permalink

By willywa | Culver City, CA May 25, 2009 02:50:29 pm:

I think there is too much hype here, and not enough substance.

Social Media is having such a huge impact on people's lives today - including people in YOUR age range :) - that it MUST be taken seriously. You remind me of one of those people who, 10 years ago, dismissed the internet as a fad.

But there is a reluctance, a sense of denial present, where emerging media is concerned, that is a sort of fear of the unknown, a clutching to the past, that simply says people are afraid of this CHANGE. Yikes! Scary! Holy Cow!

And that's all it is: change.

Oh, yeah, that, and the billions of media dollars spent on TV.

There, I said it.

WW

Permalink

By PeterContardo | Tampa, FL May 26, 2009 01:58:38 pm:

I agree with much that has been said. Social media is not a full-scale replacement for traditional media and it doesn't really change the end purpose of any marketing strategy. What it does do is change the way companies can build relationships with potential and existing clients, and if used properly, can be more effective than traditional media depending on the target audience. However, it needs to be integrated as part of an overall marketing strategy, not as a stand-alone initiative.

Through social networking sites, blogs and online video, companies can now communicate directly to their audiences while saving time and money. They can build communities around their brands and connect with audiences on a much deeper level. Consumers now represent a much greater part of any brand than they did only a few years ago. And companies that ignore social media and online video will miss out on a huge opportunity to strengthen their brands and connect with potential/existing clients in a way that extends far beyond products and services.

More on our blog: http://endavomediablog.typepad.com/endavo_media_blog/2009/02/businesses-missing-opportunties-to-tell-their-story.html

Permalink

By buzzgap | Dana Point, CA May 30, 2009 01:48:54 am:

Doug, look what you started -- a "buzz" conversation through social media! Personally, I stumbled into it on LinkedIn.

First, a toast to you and JC in "Beverly Hills" -- HEADLINES STILL MATTER!

Also, I concur with Kyle in Allentown, "the kegger is just getting started", my question is did anyone remember to buy the tap? Loads of beer, lots of beer drinkers, however to charge per cup will most definitely transform the party (see tkmiller67, Greensboro comment above). As long as the beer is free, the masses will continue to join the party. And now that they are a bit "buzzed", the fact remains toothpaste & beer together taste awful! Nevertheless, toothpaste to sanitize "morning beer dog breath" has its value (RIGHT MESSAGE, RIGHT AUDIENCE and RIGHT PLACE). Before I forget, tsmuse in Dayton I enjoyed your astute analogy "media boilermaker" invoking personal distant university days nostalgia.

I created the new term "BUZZ GAP" that may possibly encapsulate the overall discussion -- I would love to hear what you all think?

For a full "BUZZ GAP" definition please visit http://buzzgap.wordpress.com/about/

My observation is that once buzz is generated, moving from awareness to action is where Marketers do a surprisingly poor job of marketing -- They do not effectively bridge the distance between curiosity and acquisition (For a full "BUZZ GAP" definition please visit http://buzzgap.wordpress.com/about/)

EXTRAS:

JC, amusing... I would love to see a comical rant about "Beverly Hills, MI" vs. the "Beverly Hills, CA" surely there is some hilarious comparisons & contrasts.

Shout out to Kyle in Allentown... in tribute to Lehigh University (where I earned my MBA) in Bethlehem, the town next door.

Doug, thanks for starting this brilliant discussion.

Permalink

By Jaypiddy | Vancouver, BC June 29, 2009 09:19:07 pm:

I am very much down with social media as well and ingrate is into many of my campaigns but I have not thrown in the towel on other forms of marketing and advertising. It's a very big part of what I do and consult on every day. Everyone needs to understand the power of it and the fact that things have forever changed. It is a progression and we are all very excited because of the new possibilities and ways in which we can communicate our message[s].

We are still reeling from hanging our bloody hat on click through rates. We have been back peddling on that one for about 3.5 years now. Now we kindly explain that the impression is just as valuable and not to get hung up on a .01% click through rate. My point being that you should not always jump in with both feet without seeing what's just under the surface.

I will continue to recommend social media/networking to my clients and assess what ones are appropriate for each campaign/product/service. I will also blog, read blogs twitter, social network and the likes as I have found it personally rewarding and have generated business for myself along the way.

Taking about social media is a little like talking about air. We all see the value but lets start talking about it as part of the over all mix on case by case basis.

Permalink