 |
|
FEATURES
GUIDES
RESOURCES
MEDIA BUSINESS
ABOUT US
 |
|
Each issue of CMO Close-up features an interview with a CMO, as well as other marketing executives answering that issue's "Big Question."
This week's feature:
Close-up with Laura Howard, CMO, ECI Telecom
|
|
|
|
|
|
When to avoid social media
Paul GIllin
Story posted: April 6, 2009 - 6:01 am EDT
|
If you've been following this column for a while, you know that I forcefully advocate for marketers to adopt social media strategies to engage in conversations with their audiences. The rise of sophisticated and inexpensive tools, combined with the stunning decline of mainstream media, presents unprecedented opportunities.
But social media isn't for everyone. So here are a few scenarios in which marketers should tread carefully, if not avoid a social media strategy altogether.
You're in a high-ticket business. If you can count your customers on your fingers and toes, and if those customers spend tens of millions of dollars with you each year, you're probably better off using the phone, the golf course and the dinner table to deliver your message. This also goes for financial services firms with wealthy customers who prefer to keep their activities—and that of their financial advisers— private.
You fight with your employees. I recently consulted for a client in the heavy equipment industry. More than 80% of its work force is unionized, and management-labor strife is a constant. This is not an environment for encouraging direct interactions between employees and customers. While opening up the lines of communication may work in industries with a motivated and highly technical work force, it's a potential disaster if employees use that channel to trash management.
Management skepticism. In a recent study of 50 early adopters of Web 2.0 technology, McKinsey & Co. concluded that the key characteristic of successful organizations was high-level support. Social media strategies demand transparency, and employees accustomed to years of careful message filtering are understandably suspicious of being asked to speak openly. If management doesn't encourage and reward participation, the initiative will fail.
Strategic vacuum. One of the most common mistakes marketers make is to launch a social media campaign without having any idea what they're trying to accomplish. Very often this approach is driven by fascination with a tool, but tools are no good unless you know what to do with them. If you don't have an objective, then you don't know what to measure, which means you have no way to determine success. Your social media project will be cut in the next round of belt-tightening. And an objective shouldn't be to launch a product or distribute a press release. If you do it right, conversations should continue for years.
Privacy and regulatory concerns. While a few health care companies have started blogs and social networks, most are proceeding with justifiable caution. If you're in an industry where people can go to jail for what they say in public, you should be careful. Much as I hate to say it, you should probably get the lawyers closely involved.
|
9 Comments
1 through 9
Macala Wright
1928 Jewelry
April 13, 2009 09:11 pm
To address the question of management skepticism, I've utilized Tara Hunts slideshare presentations http://www.slideshare.net/missrogue and Chris Brogan's blog - http://www.chrisbrogan.com. These two individuals present social marketing strategies in a why more traditional people in our company can understand what online marketing does.
Sandra Fathi
President, Affect Strategies
April 15, 2009 01:43 pm
Hi Paul, I usually get upset when I hear objections to using social media. However, your points are very well supported and I agree that there are instances when social media can exacerbate PR problems rather than reduce or eliminate them. I have seen a few companies actually turn their reputations around by engaging online or respond to hostile criticism without the filter of the news media. Caution is good. Fear is paralyzing.Companies just need the right guidance and to 'think before they leap' into any type of media - online or off.
Best,
Sandra
www.affectstrategies.com
John Bottom
Director of Insight, Base One
April 15, 2009 05:48 pm
Paul
Thought-provoking ideas as always, but I have to take issue with your first point.
In my experience, fewer sales does not mean less time, money and effort is expended in choosing the right supplier. Big-ticket sales will involve a small army of influencers, purchasing professionals and contract managers whose professional lives are dedicated to . And just because switching suppliers happens rarely doesn't mean there should not be a concerted effort by marketers to get their brand story out there in the 'Buyersphere' and in front of these people. Social media have a crucial role to play here.
I note you do not say that the 4 areas you highlight are categorically unsuitable for social media marketing; you wisely suggest treading carefully instead. Treading carefully is always important, but I don't see why big-ticket sales should be a reason for using any more caution than normal.
But thank you for raising an important point, and I hope you readers see there are two ways of looking at this.
All the best
John
www.baseonegroup.co.uk/beyond
@JillianAnderson
Robert Sharp & Associates
April 16, 2009 04:40 pm
Excellent post. I absolutely love the point that you make about strategy. Companies'/managers' fascination with the tools, overlooking the purpose, process and STRATEGY, is the biggest obstacle to overcome. Social media marketing should not be looked at as a series of campaigns, but as a strategy - a continuous strategy. Oh yeah...and you definitely do need a clearly defined objective before going anywhere.
Paul Gillin
April 16, 2009 11:13 pm
I think pharma is being too conservative and risk-averse. Is pharma responsible for events outside of its control? Of course not! Internet legal history is very clear that organizations aren't responsible for the content of discussions they don't control. Disclaim prominently and you'll be all right. You can't control what customers say and courts won't expect you to control that.
However, you should patrol forums for inappropriate and blatantly deceptive content. I still don't think that will get you in legal trouble, but you should get the spam and overtly inappropriate material out of there, just to be safe.
Paul Gillin
Paul Gillin Communications
April 6, 2009 01:09 pm
Looks like the FDA is providing some guidance in this area: http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=102974
Dag Holmboe
Nuovomedia
April 6, 2009 12:43 pm
Paul,
Thanks for the tweet and a good article.
We were thinking about using social media in the pharmaceutical industry because there is not much social media going on there. And, we learned quickly that there is a reason for that; regulatory and risk aversion.
Via LinkedIn and other means, we talked to a lot of people in the pharmaceutical industry.
There are primarily two reasons why they don't want to touch social media. 1) if a pharma starts a conversion, is the pharma responsible for adverse events or off-label promotion? and 2) is the pharma responsible for monitoring the web for any discussions about adverse events and off-label promotions?
Until the FDA releases guidelines that answers the industry's responsibility questions, the pharma will stay away.
On the flip side, there are already some inroads by pharma to use social media. The best example is probably ADHDMoms, a facebook group.
Best,
Dag.
Dag Holmboe
July 3, 2009 05:31 pm
In all normal cases, I would agree with you, but if you are pharmaceutical company where really large dollar values are tagged to your products, even a slight risk is a large risk when run through a risk-benefit calculation.
Paul Gillin
Paul Gillin Communications
June 8, 2009 08:11 am
A number of pharma companies are already active, mostly with blogs, where they have some control over the conversation. I don't think the FDA or the courts is going to hold any company responsible for comments in public forums that are outside of the company's control. There's no precedent for that in any other industry and it wouldn't make sense to stifle conversation that way, assuming the company doesn't exaggerate or mislead.
1 through 9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
