| |||||||||||
PRINT
COMMENT
SUBSCRIBE
RSSMy article last week, "Social Media Demands A Reinvented Agency," (http://www.mediapost.com/blogs/spin/?p=1333) has drawn out a great dialogue that the marketing and advertising industry needs to have, and I am really glad to be a part of it. The fact of the matter is that agencies and marketers alike agree that the "social" aspect of social media changes the dynamic of the entire marketing industry. Interactions within social media are person-to-person. The holy grail of marketing, word-of-mouth, is becoming more amplified, more obtainable and more measurable -- but brands still can't buy it. Brands have to earn endorsements by taking part in the conversation. Brands have to participate in the community. Brands are looking to their agencies to bring them into social media. Can the agencies come through?
It's not any different than it ever was before. Achieving word-of-mouth means making a brand culturally relevant -- which requires finding out where your brand intersects with people's lives, and how you can increase the meaning of your brand to those people. Whether it's a niche audience or a mass market, how does your brand and its image add value? Trying to understand how people will behave toward your brand in social media is no different from trying to understand how people will behave toward your brand in the real world.
In the end, social media is nothing more than a mirror of people's real-world behavior (albeit amplified and with extreme ADD). If you're taking steps to make your brand relevant to people in the real world (which I sure hope you are), then it's not that big of a leap to figuring out how to make your brand relevant to people in a social media context. Social media should be a valuable tool for helping you answer that billion-dollar question of what will make your brand relevant to people, as well as the platform spreading your brand's message as you achieve greater relevance. It's listening and talking, instead of just talking.
Agencies certainly have the talent to listen. Some of the best and brightest are hungry to take on the challenge of building the iconic brands that shape our lives, and would love the opportunity to feed back the voice of the people they are talking to. But the current brand-agency relationship isn't set up for this task - and, more importantly, isn't compensated for it. Are agencies set up to have a conversation for your brand, or has a mandate to only be the brand's mouthpiece crippled agencies from truly activating your brand in social media?
It's this question that has led many to wonder if brands should be handling the activation of social media in-house. It is a valid point. If it's true that brands' participation in social media means much more than simply buying media and blasting the "big idea," can agencies fill this role?
I believe not only that agencies can, but that they must. Because unless agencies participate in social media, their role as stewards of brands will eventually end -- and their greatest fear, a future where their services are nothing more than a commoditized function performed by Google and Microsoft, (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/22/business/ad23.php), will come true. If your function can be performed by a computer, it will be. Fighting this, rather than focusing on the areas that cannot be done even by the mighty Google's algorithms, is a losing battle. The future of agencies lies in more than knowing how to get in front of the right people, but also in knowing how to talk and listen to those people to shape a brand and its message.
I wanted to leave you with the following distinction. In one of my favorite conversations over the past couple of weeks, Henry Jenkins, co-founder of MIT Comparative Media Studies, says the following in a piece pointing out why Barack Obama is better built for social media: "Campaigns are very much top down organizations focused on short term results -- let's get this person elected president -- while movements are constructed bottom-up with more long-term goals -- let's reshape the American political landscape." This is the difference between a social media "campaign" for your brand, and a social media movement for your brand. Social media was built for the second. Which is your agency building for you?
RSS FEEDS
I’m a bit late to the game here, but it’s an interesting conversation, and one I have a bit of an opinion on.
My thoughts: We’re all a bit obsessed with absolutes, which is absolutely silly. Sure, agencies that don’t recognize the ownership shift and the advent of media that consumers create may just go the way of the laser disc. But the smart ones (and there are more than a few) will do exactly what Jonathan said earlier – they “…will not be replaced by technology but … will live it, breath it and understand that consumers are in control of it.�
That evolution is the trick (go ahead – try to grow a prehensile tail). Agencies have made a lot of money ‘shaping’ reality – pushing messaging. But that’s not going to be as easy or cost effective anymore. Their slick, 30-second spot can portray a brand as the hottest new thing on the block. But if it isn’t true, 30,000 little critics (often cloaked in power-inducing anonymity) will set you – and the 30,000,000 readers out there – straight.
Those with blinders on are quaking in their thick-rimmed glasses. But here’s the rub; this isn’t something to be scared of. Hell, it’s something to celebrate. For the afore-mentioned ‘smart’ agencies, it’s the holy-grail of advertising communications, PR, sales and whatever other marketing tactic you want to throw at it. It’s a new model – a chance for lucrative, ‘specialized’ services. And it’s handily coming along at the same time as (and admittedly causing) some serious headaches in the traditional corners of the industry.
I see two areas where agencies can thrive:
1)Social Media - Response (managing your brand’s reputation) 2)Social Media - Proactive (getting people involved, online as a campaign component) Social Media - Response The knee jerk reaction is that this is a PR role – I disagree. It’s bigger than that. It’s one-to-one brand management in real time. It’s product feedback, customer relationship management and targeted advertising. And it needs to be legit. Your brand being bashed on blogs? This specialist will know, interact with posters, devise an SEO strategy to bump up some positive news and coach the client on responses. It’s real time and really important. Agencies have been talking about campaigns as customer conversations for a while. This is the real thing. Remember those 30,000 critics I mentioned earlier? This role will turn them into advocates.
Social Media – Proactive Despite the potential, political nature of the ‘response’ segment, I see this as the more complicated task and the more complicated ‘mental’ shift. It involves the creation of social media networks and movements (likely beginning with advocates). Joe raised the most difficult component of this task earlier with his ‘campaign v. movement’ debate earlier – I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive. Yes, the internet is filled with surfers who are very sensitive to corporate spin and adver-speak, so social media concepts created in a ‘if we build it, they will come’ spirit will likely fail. But those born out of a natural brand extension that offer real consumer value (not just spin) will gain a foothold and with a little support, grow.
And that last point informs…well, my last point. Despite our collective appreciation for the ‘beauty of the baud’ (attribution likely not necessary), traditional media isn’t going anywhere soon. Nor are the (smart) agencies that create it. They will both simply change, become more aware and leverage the (wonderfully profitable) opportunities that a direct dialogue with consumers creates. Social media will no longer be an afterthought. It will be a forethought. In fact, I wonder if there will soon be a day when ‘how will this play in social media’ becomes a standard component on every agency brief. Good idea? Absolutely.
Well put. Agencies were born, grew up and ultimately thrived on "selling the dream" for their clients. Then distinctly measurable metrics came along. Needless to point out, that once reality replaced the dream take a guess what (who) was no longer needed?
Steve
1. Agencies are NOT going away 2. Agencies are getting smart about social computing at about the same rate as their clients are 3. The ones who get smarter faster will grow faster.
Start small and get good at it. One example. We (http://motivequest.com) did research for a client. 1.3 million conversations segmented into 6 distinct mindsets by source of conversation. Differential analysis is the 6 mindsets to determine the motivations and drivers by mindset.
Client & agency how have a digital roadmap by mindset. We know where people are talking about cooking vs. fitness, and we know how to best position the product (motivations & drivers) for each. If all they do is use this information to improve their banner ad development and placement it will pay off 10-fold.
You don't have to do it all at once, and it isn't everything.
TO'B
Is an agency really set up to change from push to pull? From messaging to conversating? Why must an agency deal with this at all? It's not like advertising is going to go away. To add a social media department within the agency (essentially buying your way into social media) isn't the answer because then you've got competing factions within the agency. One that pushes messages out and one that participates in the message.
On the outside, it may seem like a good idea but as soon as one of them starts making more money than the other, agencies tend to be biased in that direction so neither the message nor the conversation works.
So then it must go in house? I don't believe that is the right call either. What I've found with in-house marketing is that it isn't strong enough or large enough to participate in the conversation. There's too much going on for a one or two person marketing department. Even larger companies are cutting the head count.
Then what is the answer? I believe social media is an entity to itself and must be treated as such. The new kind of connection agency will emerge that will consult and participate with the brand's messaging in mind - but they can't be held to the same standards as a traditional agency.
In other words, you can't punish them for finding out people think your product suck. You should reward them with finding out the insights on why the product sucks and their ideas on how you can make it better. They will keep you in the loop and connect you with your consumers and your partners.
You may think these guys and gals are just research then but research is and should be at arm's length just observing what is happening and reporting on that. Connection agencies are knee-deep with the consumer. Consumers should know that they are part of the company - transparent and authentic - and that they can help get them an answer that maybe customer service couldn't understand or deal with.
You are also in the long haul with this kind of company. This isn't an RFP type of arrangement. This isn't somebody you can throw to the curb after a couple of years - or just because you want to jump to the hottest connection company of the year. They are just as essential as your operations department.
Maybe I'm wrong about this but I think agencies aren't the right place to put this type of communication. Let them do what they are really good at...clearly communicating your message. Let the connection agency find out if it's working and your products are delivering the goods.
No actual consumer gives a hoot in Hell about brands. They care about products, and will reward good ones and punish bad ones using whatever tools - social media, sites, e-mail or graffiti - will allow them a voice. Brand, manipulating the conversation, injecting ourselves in the flow -- that's the ad industry's obsession and if we don't get over it we'll all end up in the rocks.
Want to build brand buzz? Cut the crap and build a better product. If an ad agency can help you do that, well God bless them. If not, what are they good for?
The "stewards of brands" are not agencies but the consumer. That game has ended already Joe. It's also clear that most times when agencies try to be stewards they are outed for being the unauthentic shills that they are.
Yes, the future of agencies relies on getting in front of the right people but that's going to be accomplished (like it or not) through the very algos and technology that you and many others seem to be railing against.
Agencies will not be replaced by technology but the ones that will be successful will live it, breath it and understand that consumers are in control of it.
I need to think about this one ;)
I agree with the campaign vs. movement distinction. However, there isn't much long term sight being addressed by businesses (with regards to social media). Many businesses have caught wind of social media via Search Engine Optimization. They compare the price of a quality SEO to that of a blog. Businesses have a short term agenda for their brand and are easily misled by favorable rankings of blog and CMS based sites. The whole premise of social media is being morphed and manipulated. But, is this type of innovation bad? I think a clearer definition of "social media" (is not just a blog) will be needed to aid the movement(long term). The campaign (short term) is being fueled by Evolution (rather than the Revolution). The bottom line, is the bottom line. If social media (by definition) doesn't reap a immediate ROI -goodbye, The funding is cut or the site taken down. I preach alot of "invoke and provoke" to businesses looking to enter social media. The emergence of an in-house social media presence is about the only way to draw out the true potential of the craft. How could someone in an agency write with as much passion and validation, as an employee who eats and breathes their business daily. The ability for businesses to understand what social media is, and see real life case studies where the risk was assumed by another and the result is proven to win, will help them to embrace and understand social media. Strategy is often overlooked for a time sensitive result. Fast, fast, fast supersedes done right. This topic will only grow and feed more conversation, but what/where will be the tipping point?
The business that hinged for a while on coming up with ideas that moved the market, has become totally focused on maximizing efficiencies. It's become a spreadsheet game.
Agency commissions may have generated windfall profits but they also created a nice pool of R&D funds that clients demanded the agency use to explore new ideas. Now agency comp is negotiated, often by the same person who buys the paper clips. The R&D is no more. So if the advertiser want's exploration he has to pay for it.
Agencies can (and perhaps must) explore the new media - but exploration will have to be funded out of agency profits - which are carefully scrutinized by analysts, who affect the price of the stock.
You have the right idea. But don't hold your breath.