Social Media Doesn't Fail, But Search Is A+

After reading Joe Mandese's column "Social Media Fails To Manifest As Marketing Medium," I confess I had exactly the same reaction as that other Joe. "Regularly turn to social media for guidance on purchase decisions"? It seemed that the study that started the whole discussion had missed the point of social media entirely.

The second Joe's rebuttal included the observation that, if word of mouth is the most influential source for buying decisions, the "giant word-of-mouth machine" that is social media has to be effective. He also points out that we don't turn to other media -- namely, TV, radio, or outdoor billboards -- for guidance either. As I said, I shared his reaction.

I'm a huge social media fan; I think it gives smart businesses an unprecedented opportunity to build customer relationships. That being said, there's no arguing the fact that social media has yet to monetize in any significant way.



Part of the problem, I suspect, is in how the question is being framed. Eli Goldratt's book "Critical Chain" describes two opposing business mentalities: the "throughput mentality" (in which the focus is on getting as much product out the door as possible) and the "cost mentality" (in which the focus is on keeping the costs as low as possible). Those two mentalities can't exist simultaneously, which is why companies end up swinging from one to the other.

Online, we've also got two mentalities, which can be defined using Dan Ariely's terms "social norms" and "market norms." Just like Goldratt's mentalities, Ariely's two norms are also incompatible.

Companies establishing their community chops have to focus on social norms, not market norms. They have to provide value before they're certain of a sale. And they have to be genuine and valid contributors to the conversation.

In traditional media, on the other hand, we expect -- and tolerate -- market norms. We'd be reasonably surprised if a company spent money on a TV commercial without trying to explicitly sell something. But the real gold is to be found on those occasions in which we actively seek out market norms, occasions on which we directly solicit the aforementioned guidance. On those occasions, smart businesses -- like good butlers -- appear as if from nowhere, ready to serve.

When it comes time to justify the return on a marketing dollar spent, those media that pop up exactly when someone is looking to buy have a giant leg-up on all others. The Yellow Pages had that leg-up for decades. Search has it now.

So, no, I don't think social media is a useless black hole of hype. Obviously, TV and radio and billboards have their place. But on the continuum of marketing performance, the bell curve is continuously thrown off by that king of purchase intent, search.

Congratulations, Search Insiders. You're in the right industry.

2 comments about "Social Media Doesn't Fail, But Search Is A+".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Patrick Boegel from Media Logic, June 2, 2009 at 1:22 p.m.

    Perhaps the first question about Social Media Platforms (and I insist that platforms needs to be added behind those two words) should not be "monenitzation" but rather just focusing on proper INTEGRATION.

  2. Stuart Long, June 3, 2009 at 2:03 a.m.

    Search marketing pros understand that people purchase what they seek. Social networking pros must understand that people are looking for other people on social media platforms. Those who most directly monetize that quest may be dealing in what some refer to as the World’s oldest profession. Trying to sell ordinary products and services to people who are actively seeking other people is kind of preposterous.

    There may or may not be a substantial trend towards social media or the integration of social media into other platforms. The buzz is loud and prolonged. The point is missing. Customer relationships can be established, maintained and multiplied without a single twit or a solitary “personal profile.” The hype is hollow air.

Next story loading loading..