Thank you for a great post, you make some salient points.

I would say, however, that this seems like a very Facebook centric view of the world and that there is evidence that true social engagement is shifting to other networks.

The value in that social engagement needs to be determined by the individual brand in question.

As well as this, general consumer attitudes towards social networks are changing.

Not necessarily in ways that work for brands but certainly in ways that require new strategic thinking.

In other words, I think you could be right that the soft marketers in the world of social engagement may be threatened but there will continue to be a role for people that have effective ideas about ways to make brands relevant within the context of peer to peer social interactions wherever they take place.

Too many small businesses have a misguided belief that they SHOULD be pounding away at social media, usually Facebook.

While every business faces limited resources at some level. Very small businesses simply cannot afford to waste time & money on something that has almost no chance of moving their needle.

Thanks for a much needed reality check.

Daniel, Thanks for the comment. On the one hand, it is a little Faceboook centric, but that's because Experian data indicates 57% of social visits go to Facebook. Just 2.1% of of social visits go to Twitter, and it's the third highest ranking social network on Experian's list. In other words, I'm not Facebook centric, the world is!

That said, I think I provide a lot of data about how social is failing to furnish acquisition and purchase, and that data is not Facebook centric.

In the end, I disagree with your last statement. There is no evidence that "making brands relevent within the context of social interactions" works from a marketing perspective. Relevance is not delivered with content, status updates and the like; it is delivered by great products, world-class service and companies with purpose. In other words, unless the enterprise delivers relevent, there is no evidence the marketing department can manufacture it in social media.

If you disagree and believe that an irrelevant brand has been made more relevant via content, I'd like to see examples. As I like to point out to people, your favorite brands (Apple, Disney, Google, etc.) are not your favorite brands because they have great content but because they offer great customer experience.

Billbean,

I still think local businesses have opportunities in social that are not available to larger brands. That said, you're right--the opportunity must be balanced with the time commitment! As a former owner of a small business, I know that time and not money is often the asset in the most limited supply for SMBs!

Love, love, love.

To your 'other department' examples: there's almost nothing any enterprise needs more than talent. HR, when they do more than just post want ads, can work with PR and corp. comms and use social media to great result. That's recruitment, that's internal training, that's team collaboration, that's retaining top talent and so on.

Have a better brand, better plan, stronger purpose and really good products/services. Word. That is all.

The 'magic intersection' - going to totally use that b/c it's parallel to my branding, PR, crisis, marketing 'proof' theories. So much of this is going thru the motions, for the sake of doing it. I'm convinced certain global brands can cut paid media by 10 even 20% and not hurt sales; spend that money smarter, still increase brand rep, market value etc etc. Then on the flip side, there's Apple w/ no social; and my local liquor store which has no ads, no SM, not even a website - but are doing great via excellent corner location and selling booze, they have built-in product demand.

Reputation and security of SMM. Control of the budget is and has always been the issue, the silo, the teams and fault lines. IDK it's a territory fight, one I always lose.

Every brand has bad tweets or posts or feedback but when they've got what I want at the price I'll pay, they get my biz. It's my default position: I'm most loyal to myself, my wallet. Much like the idea that 'the website isn't producing returns, so let's take it down' is kinda silly, walking away from social?? Exit seems unlikely so you have to rethink goals. People can and do talk about brands online - the issue is whether or not it matters; as you suggest, realign for what works. FWIW.

Thanks so much, Davina. I appreciate the thoughtful comment (and appreciate the positive feedback)!

Fascinating post with some stats that jumped screaming out at me. In the Custora study, the percentages they tracked only add up to less than 35% of the total customers acquired. That made me wonder where the rest of the customers came from...on looking at the Custora study itself, they say the rest were folks who came straight to the website or through a UTM coded URL.

In my mind it reinforces the need to focus your social pointers to a hub on your own website.

Rosemary, Good analysis. I agree that Custora data demonstrates the value of direct traffic (and, in fact, that aligns VERY well with the Monetate data in the post.)

While I completely agree that too many brands have built their social strategies on others' platforms and might consider how to do so within their own web properties, I still question how many brands can successfully do that--at least at the scale needed by the Marketing Department. I'd suggest that brands with no "magic intersection," have little chance of building any social hub that 1) consumers will want to participate in at any scale, and 2) will drive the sort of scale, acquisition and conversions Marketing needs.

I often challenge people to think of all the brands in their life. We must have 500+ brands in our refrigerator, kitchen, closets, medicine cabinet, cars, devices, etc. How many of those can legitimately expect people to join, participate and return to a social hub on their site?

I still feel the vitalthing marketers miss in an era of transparency and social platforms is that talkable, successful, relevant brands win in social media, but brands that are not talkable, successful or relevant cannot build success through posts and tweets (or even owned social hubs). Strong brands are not built with content; they are built with great experiences with the product and service.

100% agree Augie. You can't make those "come talk about our product please" sites and expect any traction. Rather your site must be an actual value-add of its own, supplementing the amazing product/service.

In the slide deck Augie, I do not see link to Mary Hopkins' song - "they were the days" . I presume there is a youtube of you singing the new words?

I like the concept of your post. Social networks are efficient channels for good content to travel. But why do people share and do brands have anything that meets those tests that also helps the brand. Brands became too social, too influenced by 'social rock stars' but is it possible to find a sweet spot? I know you will answer yes, but not for marketing. But what is marketing? Customer service is now marketing, advocates are now marketing. You are looking at marketing from a mass market/cold lead perspective - are those days over? Is marketing starting from an advoate/customer more effective? Apple does not generate leads it creates satisfied customers and while it has no Facebook page, it does not need one, the conversation happens anyway powered by social connections.

This is an excellent post, but how many brands will insist that they have that "magic intersection," even if they don't?

I suspect that many--most--will! After all, they've invested lots of time and money into building up their social presence. It's not easy to turn around and say, "Never mind, it's all bunk."

Terry, Here is the link to my playing and singing the song. Just remember, you cannot unhear this: http://youtu.be/bwun9agE_Zw

You ask a great question that deserves more of an answer than I can give here. I do think that the very tenets of marketing are changing, but it will take many years for Marketing strategies to catch up (or maybe Marketing itself needs to morph into something else.)

I like to point out to people that most of their favorite brands from the last 20 years got big with very little advertising and lots of WOM--Zappos, Google, Apple, Ebay, etc.

I think the rules ARE changing in the social/digital/mobile era. There was a time a brand could be built with advertising--in the mass media era, consumers had little voice and big brands owned the few channels of broadcast available. In those days, it was possible for Lysol to advertising itself as a feminine hygene product or cigarette companies to convince people smoking was cool AND good for your health.

Those days are gone. Marketing and advertising have value, but they have GREATEST value for companies that have a great product, offer world-class service or have a sense of purpose that motivates employees and customers alike.

I'm not sure that is a very thoughtful or cohesive answer, but you are correct. The failure of social to meet the most common marketing objectives is only the tip of the iceberg. I foresee lots of change ahead for brands that will not fundamentally lead with great Customer Experience and instead try to rely on "storytelling" or the power of advertising.

Julia, your comment is great--the risk of self-delusion is very powerful. I can lead a horse to water, but I cannot make him drink, so marketers need to be honest with themselves.

I will say this--eventually the truth always becomes apparent. Companies that keep spending on social without any quantitative results that align to Marketing objectives will, eventually, realize the mistake. I hope my blog post might help a few people reach a decision sooner rather than later, but that all depends on marketers ability to be objective about their brand and consumer perception.

Thanks for the comment.

Really thought-provoking post, Augie. I gave a keynote last week along the same lines, but nowhere near as erudite as you.

Here's where I think the challenge lies: we call it "social media marketing," yet brands treat it like "social media sales." And they wonder why they're not getting results.

Scott, thanks so much for the feedback and thought.

I agree with your general thought on "social media marketing" vs "social media sales," but I think the larger point is that we in the social media industry have to accept what the Marketing Dept values. I feel as if I've been waiting for Marketing to change its tune ever since the days of the Cluetrain, but if anything, the Marketing Dept is even MORE focused on sales, acquisition and traffic than ever before.

Until and unless most marketers change the way they measure value, I think earned media marketing will fail to suit most marketers.

Thanks!

Augie, great post and as usual very thought provoking... My thoughts are that you are right there's plenty of data suggesting that social media marketing is not yet helping to drive additional sales, but I wonder how much of that is due to a lack of internal systems that can connect the dots between social interactions (along with other customer touchpoints) and customer acquisition. I'm willing to bet in most cases company CRMs are not yet tooled to measure social engagement and the value it brings along the customer journey.

The second point I wanted to make was that social content marketing is not always for Marketing only, content marketing along with Social insights such as Life Events can help drive awareness, and generate a conversation to help advance Social Selling initiatives. In that scenario it's a combination of disciplines that come together to help drive business. This we know for a fact has proven to work in the financial services industry, where smart agents are Listening to these key events to get a deeper understanding of clients & prospects, ultimately putting themselves in a much better position to deliver a more relevant and timely product solution.

Augie,

Smart stuff, as usual. I agree with a lot of what you say here, and think the promise of "earned" media is a lot less promising when you consider that it's really more "borrowed," as you're building on a platform you have virtually no control over.

That said, I'm not sure it's fair to group content into this mix, unless you're referring only to the content shared on social. I admittedly focus on content in my career, which may make me biased here, but I firmly believe that smart content strategy (and delivery) will only become more important as buyers do more of their research upfront, on their own, and online.

@laurelmackenzie

Hey Augie,

What a refreshing look at the Social Media space, backed up with some fascinating facts, thank you so much for sharing this post.

I recently saw a company offering Social Media management for £25 per month and did wonder what you could get for this? Moving forward it would seem these cowboys will be out of a job and the true marketers can get on and do their job properly.

Will be sharing this with my followers as believe it is a must read.

All the best.

Mike Smith @joycreatives

£25 per month? I'm going to quit my job and hire these folks to do it instead, pocketing the difference! :)

Thanks Joy Creative!

With your depth of research and case studies, you draw crucial distinctions here, Augie.
It's important for everyone who purports to "know" what it takes for businesses/brands to grow,
to have eyes-wide-open; really examine the business cornerstones you offer, and ask themselves these questions.

Great brands/growing businesses, whether large, medium, or small, become that way because they forge better relationships over time...like the old-fashioned barber who hangs out and says hello to passersby. Those relationships built between people lead to trust, loyalty, return business and of course (in my opinion, a lost art), referrals.

I believe that social media channels are just one slice of the pie, a piece of the holistic business plan.
Often, when brands are fully present on social as well as owned media channels, they are able to converse with, and make it easy for their loyal/raving fans to click and refer friends, family, and associates.
I always say "use the tools, don't let the tools use you" to the business owners I work with. Everything is so "buzz-wordy" these days and really, there's nothing new under the sun, except for some added ways to generate World Of Mouth, as author Geno Church called it in his book "Brains On Fire".

I'll be sharing this post via social media, in fact ;-). Thanks for all the effort you put into this piece.