From Joshua Rappeneker at flickr under a Creative Commons License.
For the first few years of the new millennium, social media was an exclusive club. It remained relatively untouched by traditional advertising, and the lucky first adopters of MySpace and Facebook could live in peace. Why, then, are communities that were originally designed for people increasingly being hijacked by companies?
Recent articles in the NY Times and on social media hub Mashable have highlighted how the traditional marketing community is barking up the wrong tree in its use of social media (thanks to Seth for pointing thelinks out). We all know that it’s only a matter of time until advertising hits social media channels full-on, and until then we get to watch the first adopters – like P&G, and Crest – give it their best shot, and sometimes fail.
Not all social media channels are created the same, however. For example, during the Beijing Olympics, Lenovo and other companies let their sponsored athletes film short video clips, which were then posted to YouTube. This form of social media marketing is relatively inoffensive because it does little to encroach on regular users (ie: you and me); in this case, Lenovo puts content up like any other YouTube user, and has to fight just as hard for eyeballs by making sure the content is actually worth viewing.
However, there’s another type of social media marketing that’s a little different (and it’s the one that’s causing such a ruckus): sometimes a company decides to piggyback an existing community of users, essentially buying into an exclusive club – and buying access to eyeballs. The problem with this is that oftentimes the users don’t actually want to see ads, they haven’t given permission to be wooed. In these cases companies are essentially hijacking online communities for their own use – examples include the various companies that are coming onto Twitter, using targeted Facebook ads, or placing ad content on YouTube.
This encroachment of companies on our personal – virtual – space is the equivalent of placing ads in a hardback novel. Our reaction? Not good.
So what does this portend for the future of marketing and social media? I think there will be a fundamental shift to a new model of marketing, where companies are perceived as people, citizens, individuals – but must act accordingly, or risk being shunned.
Any thoughts about how ecopreneurists can/’t or should/n’t use social media to spread the word?
Stay tuned for a future post on what I call “action marketing”, where I dig a little deeper into these issues.
I can’t help but laugh at the irony of the SHARP advertisement at the end of your post.
As we (at Professional Building Systems) are discussing our clients…and our types of clients… and profiling them, I keep reminding our project managers that they are dealing with a PERSON. That person has thoughts, emotions, fears, and an ego.
Companies that remain ‘corporate’ won’t succeed in this new media… Companies that become their employees and deal with people will.
I think a major problem with the model you’re suggesting is that it looks at tools like Twitter as starting from social networking and then becoming a tool rather than always being a tool without it’s potential being met. Look at how the fire departments in California have used it to alert citizens of wildfires changing direction and threatening communities, or at the ability to use it to stage rallies or provide promotionals to those who follow a brand. There’s a whole dimension to social networking that hasn’t been explored yet, and so many are accusing marketers of encroaching upon it because it somehow threatens the “@anonymous: I ate beans today” approach to social “networking”. If anything, looking at it that way stifles innovation and prevents people from pushing the technology to new places.
@Cyndee: the irony is definitely not lost on me – it does go to show that the ‘social networks’ we individuals hold dear (much like Ecopreneurist) depend on an uneasy symbiotic coexistence with businesses (which keep the networks afloat through ads).
@Josh: I definitely see your point, and that in many ways social media tools are purpose-agnostic, and can and should be used by whomever for whatever. That said, I think that first movers/early adopters should be given priority status; sure, Twitter can technically be used successfully by companies, but it has evolved into a tool primarily used – and designed – for individuals (and wouldn’t otherwise be of interest to companies). Much like I wouldn’t barge my way into an OPEC meeting (interesting as it would be), I expect the same courtesy…
The key thing for companies to remember is that social media is about communication, not selling. If a company sets up a Twitter account and interacts with users and potential customers on an opt-in basis, that’s cool. But plaster a series of promotional tweets probably and you won’t get far.
On the eco side, the same holds true, engage the community and share your knowledge of the industry. Help people, start a blog and write interesting articles. Comment on others blogs – with valid information, not advertising. Include your company URL in your profile, and if people want to find out more information they can go there.
It will be interesting to see the user response to forced social marketing or even forced viral marketing. Users are becoming more and more aware of fake viral marketing and becoming more negative towards companies who attempt to “trick” them into believing something is real when its just a marketing gimmick.
@SMM: Absolutely – companies are going to have to crack the “value nut”. There has to be more to marketing that just a sell, and it’s those companies that involve users in a fulfilling experience that will come out on top.