Me: So what you do, are you in the (web) business?
He: I am a social media consultant
Me: What do you do?
He: I advise on how to use new social platforms to attract and engage customers.
Me: What were you doing one year ago?
He: I was a used car salesman in Sunnyvale.
Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins
· 1 year ago
I think you may have told me that before.
It's true, though. I've met a number of folks who claimed to be social media consultants and internet experts (mostly, sorry to beat this drum again, in the mlm/affiliate marketing world) who did a lot of non-tech related stuff very recently.
There are a lot of areas in social media where folks are promoting wrong-headed ideas regarding how it's supposed to work. Thankfully, over the last year, I've seen more and more folks start to really 'get it,' and less folks who are simply shysters.
The good thing about social media is that you can learn through osmosis. The very nature of socializing online is very akin to socializing in real life. By copying the good habits of the successful, many folks realize what the positive benefits of social media can be on their own.
Drama 2.0
· 1 year ago
Mark: the point of my discussion wasn't about any of the many "benefits" a social media "consultant" might tell me exist.
The point was that, metaphorically speaking, Honda dealers should sell Hondas and Ferrari dealers should sell Ferraris.
Right now, when it comes to social media, I see a lot of Honda dealers trying to convince me that the Honda Accord on the lot is really a Ferrari 430. For obvious reasons, I'm asking questions and trying to figure out if they're drunk or stupid. I suspect it may be both.
This isn't about Web 1.0 or Web 2.0. It's about common sense. Give me an honest description of the product you're selling me - what it can do, what it can't do and why it makes sense for my business.
Your job isn't to oversell me on "potential." I know there is a lot of "potential" out there. You want me to hire you so your job is to demonstrate how this "potential" can benefit my business and to give me permission to believe that you're qualified to cost-effectively help me exploit it.
Alan: you met Shel Israel too?
Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins
· 1 year ago
Isn't my entire article above an answer to that question? I even go into specifics.
Social media and Web 2.0 consulting isn't always about measurable ROI. It's a different approach to business that shaves costs in a number of ways.
If you're strictly talking about marketing campaigns designed to convert traffic to sales, then social media and web 2.0 marketing is a square peg to a round hole.
Drama 2.0
· 1 year ago
Mark: your post really answers nothing. If it was a sales pitch for a product, I would still have little clarity on what the product is (in less-than-abstract terms) and how it could be applied to my business.
You now state:
"Social media and Web 2.0 consulting isn't always about measurable ROI. It's a different approach to business that shaves costs in a number of ways."
Cost reductions can be measured and are a form of ROI (return on investment). You seem to have some confusion about that.
You have essentially stated, "I can save you money but you won't be able to measure it."
You'll certainly understand my skepticism. I'd expect you to be equally skeptical if I tell you that I own a 20,000 square foot beachfront estate in St. Kitts but for some reason can't show it to you.
Bottom line: social media has not created some new economics or some hitherto unknown approach to business.
You say you have a product that will result in cost savings. I don't care if this product is social media or a robot that can replace my accountants. Simply tell me which costs you're reducing (or eliminating) and give me some realistic numbers.
This is not rocket science here.
Web 2.0 and Online Marketing
· 1 year ago
Nice post on Web 2.0! It is really OK that Web 2.0 is not use like Web 1.0. Web 2.0 means we are one step ahead in online marketing. We are making interact with people and gathering on web for introducing new thing. So, Online marketing in the age of web 2.0 surly not behave like web 1.0.
Shogun
· 1 year ago
Both have logic on their side!
This "argument" seems like a religious one?
Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins
· 1 year ago
Drama, this is where your arguments cross the line from skepticism to absurdism.
Apples and oranges between real estate and intangible goods.
I suggest you re-read the article with that in mind.
Mark
· 1 year ago
I'm glad to learn of more examples of how companies are integrating social media into their campaigns.
I think both sides of the argument bring out valid points on the use of web2.0. Putting a banner ad on a blog is not fully harnessing the use of social media.
but I think the qualitative returns from consumers insights are as, if not more, invaluable than a few surveys.
With that, are we ready to monetize social media now?
Ling
· 1 year ago
Mark Hopkins has a valid point here. You can't precisely measure the benefits of 'good' social media marketing. Its more like people start listening to someone who has a good rep, and that counts in the long run, cause people remember that so-and-so person recommended this product.
How many people actually take some action immediately is a different matter, but opinion about a product, or branding, has a quite noticable effect.
Drama 2.0
· 1 year ago
Mark: I think you're confused. There is no discussion of real estate and intangible goods here.
In case I wasn't clear enough, my point was: if you tell me that you can save me money but can't show me how, I'm going be as skeptical of you as I would be of a person who brags about owning a massive beachfront estate but for some unknown reason won't give me a tour of it.
In other words, I'm going to call BS.
Ling: if you can't measure the benefits of "good" social media marketing, how exactly do you know they exist?
If you want to pitch social media marketing as a branding exercise, I have no problem with that.
But you're clearly not familiar with this type of marketing because, although it is often a much more difficult beast to measure than direct marketing, for instance, marketers have been measuring the effects of branding campaigns for decades. The metrics simply change (i.e. instead of counting immediate sales, leads, clicks, etc. they look at brand recall, brand recognition, etc.).
Drama 2.0
· 1 year ago
Mark: by the way, instead of suggesting that I re-read your article (which I find to be little more than a cop-out), why don't you go ahead and end this little debate once and for all and prove that I'm completely off base here.
For your convenience, I'll repeat:
You say you have a product that will result in cost savings. I don't care if this product is social media or a robot that can replace my accountants. Simply tell me which costs you're reducing (or eliminating) and give me some realistic numbers.
Since I understand that you're not personally selling a social media product, find me two or three case studies that demonstrate how a B2C or B2B brand has used social media to save a non-negligible amount of money.
Obviously, these should:
- Explain how the cost savings was achieved. - Explain how the cost savings was measured. - Provide some evidence that the cost savings was worthwhile by putting any cost savings into context (i.e. I don't want to hear that a $15 billion corporation saved $5,000 using social media).
Simple. Right?
Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins
· 1 year ago
It isn't a cop out to ask you to re-read something to answer a question that's already answered.
I'll quote myself, since you don't want to scroll up.
"Within all our social graphs are hidden resources. For marketers, there are potential standard bearers and evangelists. For advertising folks, there are potential customers. For managers and HR, there are potential employees. For nuts and bolts guys like developers and engineers, there are potential technical assistants."
Can you really not connect the dots on this? Can you not understand that by having additional resources at your disposal, tasks get accomplished more efficiently?
To further answer your question about two or three case studies, I'll again ask you to re-read the article. I cited three. See if you can find them.
Ace Marauder
· 1 year ago
Good Article. Good debate.
Scott
· 1 year ago
Social media presence clearly has potential tangible benefits for marketers. And intangibles as well. I'm not sure any thinking marketers essentially debate that.
Nevertheless, it's just as clear that many in the social media pundit / practitioner crowd have only the weakest and murkiest of metrics or outcomes to offer for what success looks like. (Even of non-quantitaive measure.) At least as compared to traditional media buys. (And for the purposes of this discussion, I'd now slot SEM and even SEO in there as traditional.) To be sure, it's always been difficult if not impossible to fully judge an old-fashioned PR campaign. Or to isolate impact of an outdoor media buy when combined with other local marketplace efforts, etc.
Still, there's something especially fuzzy about social media marketers' claims. They're reminiscent of the very early Web 1.0 incantations of "You Don't Get It," from the early adopter crowd. (Which I chanted as loudly as anyone.) These predictions have more than come true and then some. Though just as often - if not moreso - the future was clearly mis-understood by many of the self-proclaimed experts. And even less so by the many who set out a shingle proclaiming SEO/SEM expertise. To this day, the lack of skill amoung plenty of "practioners" in these areas falls into the category of "I laugh 'cuase it's funny, I cry 'cause it's true."
If there's one major positive difference between 1.0 and 2.0 marketing issues, it's that there's a lot more smart people with real budgets looking carefully this time. The debate will happen faster. Things will ideally get understood faster. There'll still be some stupid money out there and some of the snake oil crowd will slough at the trough a bit. But everyone "gets it" now in terms of the overall strategic view. The questions needing answers are increasingly of a tactical nature.
In the end, for marketers of any size, Web 1.0, 2.0, and Web Point X don't matter. And they never have. It's the same as it's ever been. There's time, resources/$$$, the means by which you engage with your marketplace and results. People will put $$$ into stuff that works and abandon stuff that doesn't. Regardless of how many eyeballs or social graph connections something has.
Sicerely, Scott (Just another no longer hidden resource in your social graph.)
Abhishek Singh
· 1 year ago
Yes, it is not a topic, it is a debate. In my point of view it is a big debate for current situation. Your logic is great. It is very informative post.
All Comments
Me: So what you do, are you in the (web) business?
He: I am a social media consultant
Me: What do you do?
He: I advise on how to use new social platforms to attract and engage customers.
Me: What were you doing one year ago?
He: I was a used car salesman in Sunnyvale.
It's true, though. I've met a number of folks who claimed to be social media consultants and internet experts (mostly, sorry to beat this drum again, in the mlm/affiliate marketing world) who did a lot of non-tech related stuff very recently.
There are a lot of areas in social media where folks are promoting wrong-headed ideas regarding how it's supposed to work. Thankfully, over the last year, I've seen more and more folks start to really 'get it,' and less folks who are simply shysters.
The good thing about social media is that you can learn through osmosis. The very nature of socializing online is very akin to socializing in real life. By copying the good habits of the successful, many folks realize what the positive benefits of social media can be on their own.
The point was that, metaphorically speaking, Honda dealers should sell Hondas and Ferrari dealers should sell Ferraris.
Right now, when it comes to social media, I see a lot of Honda dealers trying to convince me that the Honda Accord on the lot is really a Ferrari 430. For obvious reasons, I'm asking questions and trying to figure out if they're drunk or stupid. I suspect it may be both.
This isn't about Web 1.0 or Web 2.0. It's about common sense. Give me an honest description of the product you're selling me - what it can do, what it can't do and why it makes sense for my business.
Your job isn't to oversell me on "potential." I know there is a lot of "potential" out there. You want me to hire you so your job is to demonstrate how this "potential" can benefit my business and to give me permission to believe that you're qualified to cost-effectively help me exploit it.
Alan: you met Shel Israel too?
Social media and Web 2.0 consulting isn't always about measurable ROI. It's a different approach to business that shaves costs in a number of ways.
If you're strictly talking about marketing campaigns designed to convert traffic to sales, then social media and web 2.0 marketing is a square peg to a round hole.
You now state:
"Social media and Web 2.0 consulting isn't always about measurable ROI. It's a different approach to business that shaves costs in a number of ways."
Cost reductions can be measured and are a form of ROI (return on investment). You seem to have some confusion about that.
You have essentially stated, "I can save you money but you won't be able to measure it."
You'll certainly understand my skepticism. I'd expect you to be equally skeptical if I tell you that I own a 20,000 square foot beachfront estate in St. Kitts but for some reason can't show it to you.
Bottom line: social media has not created some new economics or some hitherto unknown approach to business.
You say you have a product that will result in cost savings. I don't care if this product is social media or a robot that can replace my accountants. Simply tell me which costs you're reducing (or eliminating) and give me some realistic numbers.
This is not rocket science here.
This "argument" seems like a religious one?
Apples and oranges between real estate and intangible goods.
I suggest you re-read the article with that in mind.
I think both sides of the argument bring out valid points on the use of web2.0. Putting a banner ad on a blog is not fully harnessing the use of social media.
http://oldskoolmark.wordpress.com/2008/06/26/em...
Indeed, the ROI is difficult to measure as I've discussed here,
http://oldskoolmark.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/ro...
but I think the qualitative returns from consumers insights are as, if not more, invaluable than a few surveys.
With that, are we ready to monetize social media now?
How many people actually take some action immediately is a different matter, but opinion about a product, or branding, has a quite noticable effect.
In case I wasn't clear enough, my point was: if you tell me that you can save me money but can't show me how, I'm going be as skeptical of you as I would be of a person who brags about owning a massive beachfront estate but for some unknown reason won't give me a tour of it.
In other words, I'm going to call BS.
Ling: if you can't measure the benefits of "good" social media marketing, how exactly do you know they exist?
If you want to pitch social media marketing as a branding exercise, I have no problem with that.
But you're clearly not familiar with this type of marketing because, although it is often a much more difficult beast to measure than direct marketing, for instance, marketers have been measuring the effects of branding campaigns for decades. The metrics simply change (i.e. instead of counting immediate sales, leads, clicks, etc. they look at brand recall, brand recognition, etc.).
For your convenience, I'll repeat:
You say you have a product that will result in cost savings. I don't care if this product is social media or a robot that can replace my accountants. Simply tell me which costs you're reducing (or eliminating) and give me some realistic numbers.
Since I understand that you're not personally selling a social media product, find me two or three case studies that demonstrate how a B2C or B2B brand has used social media to save a non-negligible amount of money.
Obviously, these should:
- Explain how the cost savings was achieved.
- Explain how the cost savings was measured.
- Provide some evidence that the cost savings was worthwhile by putting any cost savings into context (i.e. I don't want to hear that a $15 billion corporation saved $5,000 using social media).
Simple. Right?
I'll quote myself, since you don't want to scroll up.
"Within all our social graphs are hidden resources. For marketers, there are potential standard bearers and evangelists. For advertising folks, there are potential customers. For managers and HR, there are potential employees. For nuts and bolts guys like developers and engineers, there are potential technical assistants."
Can you really not connect the dots on this? Can you not understand that by having additional resources at your disposal, tasks get accomplished more efficiently?
To further answer your question about two or three case studies, I'll again ask you to re-read the article. I cited three. See if you can find them.
Nevertheless, it's just as clear that many in the social media pundit / practitioner crowd have only the weakest and murkiest of metrics or outcomes to offer for what success looks like. (Even of non-quantitaive measure.) At least as compared to traditional media buys. (And for the purposes of this discussion, I'd now slot SEM and even SEO in there as traditional.) To be sure, it's always been difficult if not impossible to fully judge an old-fashioned PR campaign. Or to isolate impact of an outdoor media buy when combined with other local marketplace efforts, etc.
Still, there's something especially fuzzy about social media marketers' claims. They're reminiscent of the very early Web 1.0 incantations of "You Don't Get It," from the early adopter crowd. (Which I chanted as loudly as anyone.) These predictions have more than come true and then some. Though just as often - if not moreso - the future was clearly mis-understood by many of the self-proclaimed experts. And even less so by the many who set out a shingle proclaiming SEO/SEM expertise. To this day, the lack of skill amoung plenty of "practioners" in these areas falls into the category of "I laugh 'cuase it's funny, I cry 'cause it's true."
If there's one major positive difference between 1.0 and 2.0 marketing issues, it's that there's a lot more smart people with real budgets looking carefully this time. The debate will happen faster. Things will ideally get understood faster. There'll still be some stupid money out there and some of the snake oil crowd will slough at the trough a bit. But everyone "gets it" now in terms of the overall strategic view. The questions needing answers are increasingly of a tactical nature.
In the end, for marketers of any size, Web 1.0, 2.0, and Web Point X don't matter. And they never have. It's the same as it's ever been. There's time, resources/$$$, the means by which you engage with your marketplace and results. People will put $$$ into stuff that works and abandon stuff that doesn't. Regardless of how many eyeballs or social graph connections something has.
Sicerely,
Scott
(Just another no longer hidden resource in your social graph.)
Thanks