Archives for posts with tag: nma

Sometimes you read something that makes you sit up and look quizzically into the distance. This happened today when I read this article by a certain Nigel Walley (it doesn’t say where he is from, so I’m assuming he is the ad-man, Managing Director of Decipher Concept).

I’m sure Mr Walley is merely trying to play devil’s advocate or ‘put the cat amongst the pigeons’, but the scalawag has riled me a little bit with his mis-informed piece, so I felt urged to pen a few words to set the record straight.

The social media opportunity

He kicks of with a slam-dunk, wind-up merchant question: “Is it okay to think that Facebook is a bit crap?” Well, of course it is Nigel, but just exactly what is your point?

Well, his main beef centres around three points: firstly, that “our industry” (not exactly certain which industry he means) is ‘apparently’ banging on about the fact that brands “must” do social media. Secondly, that “our industry” doesn’t seem to know what it’s doing when it comes to social media and is merely picking on the social-network-du-jour (he names Bebo, Myspace and Second Life as examples) and lastly he seems a bit upset that some people (I suspect they are again in “our industry”, though maybe not and maybe that it the problem!) are making money from social media.

So, leaving aside the last point, let’s investigate this in more detail.

First, the ‘why do social media’ question. Surely we are beyond this? The ‘maybe brands should just stay away’ argument is naive! Walley brazenly proclaims: “Could Facebook not just be a globally successful communications medium that doesn’t need brands, like the telephone?” As a consumer, I’m damn sure I want brands to be accessible on the telephone and, increasingly, I want them to be accessible on social media too!

The amount of people now using social media alone suggests there is a fantastic opportunity for brands. The relationships that brands can develop through social have also been proven to be more powerful and lasting than other forms of marketing. For many brands, embracing social media is not a choice anymore, it’s an imperative. For many, their customers are there in their millions talking about them, criticising them and praising them. Try telling these brands that they should stay away.

The social media bandwagon

However, his complaint that brands are being ‘forced’ to do social media (not quite sure who is saying they ‘must’ do it, but I’m assume he means agencies), then he is right to say this is an error (I’m not in a position to say whether agencies are saying this btw).

Fact: social media isn’t right for every company. It’s why I still advocate an audience-focused approach: identify who you are targeting, with what message and then choose the right channel to reach this audience. This could be social media, but it might not be.

He suggests that the phrase du jour of social media experts is that “brands must learn how to engage with their customers through social media”. A more appropriate phrase is perhaps that “brands must learn how to engage with their customers if they are going to use social media as a marketing channel”.

The social media challenge

Because the fact is, if you do decide to go down the social media route, learning about the ‘engagement’ bit is a challenge. Most companies need to refocus or realign themselves to deal with it. Brands that are used to whacking out their billboard ads or popping a press release to a journalist will have a shock when they find users responding to a tweet or commenting on a blog post. Learning to deal with this isn’t rocket science, but does take careful consideration.

When it comes to the ‘doing’ there is still, of course, much to learn. Social media is a growing, developing medium, so there will be the Myspaces, Bebos and Second Lifes of this world that will not survive. However, although NIgel Walley might think Facebook is ‘crap’, he would be foolish to suggest it won’t survive. 400 million people worldwide (and counting) disagree with him.

We are all learning. We will all get things wrong. Some of us might even push some boundaries. Again, it’s not rocket science, but it’s only by ‘doing’ that we will get better and be able to give better advice to the clients or brands that we work for.

If you are coming from an advertising, media buying or push marketing background, then I can see exactly why you would want to belittle the potential and effect of social media. But, if you are more used to managing reputations, raising profiles and building influence, then social media not only makes sense, but, in many cases, is a fantastic opportunity.

Danny Whatmough (@dannywhatmough) is a PR consultant at Wildfire PR. He blogs at dannywhatmough.com and the Wildfire Blog

picture credit

Fascinating stats from NMA today, revealing the potential impact of Facebook social graph for brands, businesses and publishers:

LoveFilm said it had increased traffic from Facebook by 300% and had seen thousands of users ‘like’ movie and actor pages. Stephen Field, LoveFilm’s head of traffic, said that although early statistics had been positive, LoveFilm wants integration to equate to more subscriptions.

It’s a huge figure, but not totally surprising I guess. In fact for me, the most amazing thing is that Facebook hadn’t implemented something like this sooner.

I’m also surprised that we haven’t seen more brands implementing the feature on their websites, not to mention publishers (how many of the UK’s newspaper websites have implemented it for example – I’m still annoyed every time I go to the Guardian that they don’t even have a retweet button!!).

LoveFilm’s comment about turning the integration into subscriptions is interesting and suggests a very shortsighted approach. Brands that see integration like this as a shortcut to social media nirvana will be sadly disappointed.

Facebook Open Graph has a massive potential for businesses of all sizes, but it needs to be properly integrated (and supported) by a well thought through social media strategy otherwise it’s pointless.

Interesting post from Wendy McAuliffe looking at how the trade press are (or aren’t) using blogs:

“What’s apparent is that some trade publishers have been nervous about blog content undermining the value of their magazine and online editorial, often failing to grasp where blogging can add value.”

The two examples she cites are particularly telling. NMA and Revolution are titles you would expect to be leading the way, and yet they aren’t. Revolution were very late to the party earlier this year and NMA still aren’t really there (although look out for a newly launched nma.co.uk on Monday…complete with a blog? Who knows?).

But, as Wendy says, there are obvious concerns for publishers whose history is steeped in print.

For me though, it does seem a bizarre and dangerous tactic.

Whilst these ‘giants’ are sleeping, a whole array of ‘amateur’ bloggers are springing up, gathering followers and writing some great stuff. The trad media may still be able to catch up, but what damage has already been done?

The same could be said of the PR industry’s own bible – PR Week. Despite its recent obsession about Twitter and the quoting of blogs in the magazine, the website is hardly 2.0 (and that’s not even discussing the pay wall it has in place – for which I keep forgetting the password!).

And perhaps the problem lies in the fact that these are big publications, ruled by big publishing houses, which find it difficult to ‘change’. And when they do decide to change, it takes time.

Revolution has its new website, Retail Week launched its new site yesterday and NMA has its turn on Monday.

These are all steps in the right direction. But where is the innovation? Are the steps too small and too late?

One of my real bugbears is when an online article/post mentions a website, but fails to link to it. I can understand not wanting to litter content with links, that just gets silly, but when it is fundamental to the story and there is no link it just drives me crazy!

And, without wanting to pick on anyone in particular, as I know the problem is widespread, today I have to single out New Media Age/Mad.co.uk.

Because of the nature of the site, they talk about websites, A LOT! So why oh why oh why don’t they link out to them? Is it out of panic about loosing link-juice? Do they want to try and keep users on the website at all costs? Is it just an administrative step too far for a publication that is still driven by a print-based magazine?

I don’t know.

All I do know is that it really annoys me and makes me avoid using the site over others that, frequently, have the same story with links.

As Dave Winer says, on the quote that adorns this blog: “People come back to places that send them away”

Related Posts with Thumbnails