Blogging can be a very frustrating experience. Sometimes you sit there, driven by the imperative to publish, desperately trying to find something worthwhile to say. At other times, too many things clamor for attention and interesting ideas get left on the shelf. That’s what Twitter is for, right? To throw out an idea, an argument, a question, whether it’s complete or not. So with that in mind I want to revisit an article I read a couple of weeks ago because it addresses a fundamentally important topic.
The article by Simon Dumenco, was titled, “The Real Meaning of Ashton Kutcher’s 1M Twitter Followers.” For those of you who may not be able to access the article, published on April 17 in AdAge, I will summarize Dumenco’s essential point.
Ignoring his commentary on the facile nature of Mr. Kutcher’s tweets, his premise boils down to this: Social media is reverting to a very old-fashioned model of communication: broadcasting. “The few” are speaking to “the many.” The core activity of “the few” is the marketing of an idea—getting people to act, either logically or illogically—through broadcasting. Dumenco concludes, “There’s a parallel, of course, to the housing bubble. At some point it suddenly dawns on millions of people that they’ve paid way too much for way too little actual value. (If you’re one of the people who has read every one of Mr. Kutcher’s more than 1,400 Twitter updates … well, just realize that you’ll never, ever get that time back.)”
While I agree with Simon that social media’s value is overrated, I disagree with the idea that the few tweeting to the many is “broadcasting.” Social media is not broadcasting. It’s publishing. Individuals can now publish whatever they want, at no cost, and have the potential to reach a mass audience. But if the content is not widely consumed, there is no “broadcasting” taking place.
Dumenco’s article inspired an immediate and heated barrage of comment. Unfortunately it mostly boiled down to the usual two-sided debate. “Revolution,” cries one camp. “Everything is changing, you people just don’t get it, you have your heads in the sand!”
“Human nature,” cries the other camp. “People have always gossiped, you are the ones that don’t get it, you are ignoring history!”
I guess I fall into the latter camp. I believe that we are watching evolution at work. By and large, technology is changing far faster than humans can adapt to it. But when a new technology satisfies a basic human need better than an old one does, that technology takes off. Social media satisfy the basic human need to connect with others. Facebook and similar platforms allow you to reestablish contact with old friends, meet new ones who share common interests, and have impromptu chats with whoever happens to be around when you’re logged on. But unfortunately what makes Facebook a great venue for connecting with others does not make it a good medium for marketing. Social media can’t replace traditional media for marketers.
Of course, the sad thing is that it probably does not matter which side of the new media debate is right. There is a fundamental problem facing marketers today. Fragmentation is rampant, online and off. So the cost of reaching a mass audience continues to climb. That’s not a problem for brands such as Google, Skype and LinkedIn that can actually make a profit in the “freemium” economy. But if your business model requires economies of scale to produce a product at an attractive price, then you need a mass market. And to communicate with the mass market and create mass demand, you need good old-fashioned reach.
Once you have reached your audience you need to engage them. And this, I think, is where matters get confused, because the social media do have the ability to engage people. Social media engage people because people want to feel connected and involved with the world around them. So the people who followed Kutcher on Twitter were responding to the same urges as those who turned up to greet President Obama in Strasbourg (see video below), watched The Beatles arrive at JFK airport (see video below) on February 7th, 1964, or picked up a copy of Vanity Fair in 1935.
The Twitter experience may be just as genuine, even more immediate, and far more accessible, but regrettably I suspect that because it requires far less investment on the part of “the many,” the experience is also far less memorable. And that is why Twitter fails as a marketing tool. Brand building requires not just awareness but the creation of lasting memories. Video communication, whether on the TV, Internet or mobile phone, can engage people well enough to establish lasting memories. Gaming can too, but I doubt social media can hack it, because, as I said, “tweeting” is not really broadcasting. People use social media to connect with each other, not with brands.
Twitter is a great case in point. In our discussion of whether I should tweet, proponents suggested that I would benefit by sharing ideas, information and gossip with like-minded people. But very few of us will ever attract the number of followers that Kutcher does. Not everyone leads an interesting life or has something worthwhile to say. Most people who tweet don’t even get noticed. To attract a loyal following on Twitter or Facebook, people need to act just like a magazine. They need to provide their readers with a consistent supply of compelling content. Ask yourself, can your brand really do that day in and day out?
The scary thing about social media is that it’s not just the people following Mr. Kutcher who have wasted their time. It is all the marketers who have been led up the garden path by the new media revolutionaries. But then, the revolutionaries have their own agenda, don’t they? If they don’t persuade marketers that theirs really is the new frontier, then their big payoff disappears. The pot of gold vanishes from the end of the rainbow.
So marketers beware. Twitter, Facebook and friends may make useful business tools and enjoyable pastimes, but they are no way to build a brand other than the one that shares your own name.
(4 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ...
Email This Post
May 14th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Like many people… I don’t get the furore around Twitter. I can see how people like to follow celebs. I’m sure it’s fascinating to know Jonathon Ross has settled in to watch Britain’s Got Talent or Stephen Fry has popped out to buy a newspaper. But these are probably the same people who buy Now/Hello/OK! for gossip about the same people (or read their wives copy… ahem).
But to gain a big tribe you have to already be famous (I’ve not yet heard of anyone becoming famous because of twitter). There also seem to be some big brands with a decent following (I can see why following Dell to find out about a big discount event is attractive).
As a smaller brand owner I know there are 10s of 1000s of parents who are happy customers from the last 25 years. They go and post reviews across the web about our baby carrier. Some of them have found our facebook page and are fans. But I’m fairly sure almost none of them will be interested to know what Wilkinet’s MD had for breakfast. And so I sit at my computer, my wilkinet twitter account active, being followed by a handful of people (who I don’t know) and ask myself… are any of them really interested in what I’m doing now? Or are they (like me) following me in the hope of turning me into one of their customers. As an industry associate recently said to me (after we’d started following each other) “I’m just starting out and not sure what I’m doing yet.”
I get the impression that brand owners (big and small) feel that if they’re not on twitter they’re missing something - but few of us know what to do once we get there. It may turn out to be 2009’s biggest red herring.
May 14th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
An interesting take. Is social media evolution or revolution? It depends how much of a share of its users time and mind it takes. IF social media are basically not useful for marketing, and IF social media are taking up more and more of people’s time (especially in younger demographics), then whether ev or rev it’s an unhappy development for marketers. The principle of “fish where the fish are” suggests that they can’t just give social media up as a bad lot.
But those are two quite big “ifs”!
I think there’s a little sleight of hand in your argument where you separate “video communication” and “social media”. Which is YouTube? Rich content - audio, video, gaming - is more and more a part of social media, even if not of Twitter. But Twitter (much as I love it!) can’t really be used as a stand in for all social media.
Incidentally, the most convincing “it’s a revolution” book I’ve read is Clay Shirky’s “Here Comes Everybody” - highly recommended. He isn’t a marketer though and doesn’t care about them/us.
May 15th, 2009 at 2:42 am
I’m not sure Twitter can have failed as a marketing tool when marketing practices in the space are only just starting to emerge. And I’m not sure brands necessarily need to act like magazines on Facebook or twitter - can’t they just chat with their followers and engage them that way?
May 15th, 2009 at 6:40 am
Thanks guys, interesting feedback. I’ll respond in more detail later but here are two quick thoughts:
Tom, I would make a distinction between consumer generated and professional video. I know that rich media and video are part of social media - I do wish my friend Mark would stop sending me videos on Facebook! - but I question whether they can really be used for marketing purposes. Maybe if they evolve to be more like iPhone apps.
Duncan, I believe Pizza Hut hired someone to spearhead their Twitter account but most of what they seem to do is highlight special offers. Anyone can give stuff away or cut prices but it is not the same as brand building. If anything it is a great way to undermine your brand. To really chat with people a brand would have to recruit a bunch of people. Even if they were all volunteers there is an opportunity cost to having people tweet. I doubt whether the ROI will ever prove worthwhile outside a business context.
May 15th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Duncan… (”can’t they just chat with their followers”). Who is the best person to be that “they” you refer to. Do you nominate a company champion to detail their day to day life as the company twitter figurehead (toothbrushing, sandwich fillings and all) or do you have some update information on company musings.
Perhaps the head of NPD could post daily updates (but competitors might be the first to start following!). Alternatively whoever sits nearest the watercooler could post the latest snippets of conversation going on at the company.
Call me a luddite and leave me in the dark ages, but Twitter seems to be a wave that brands might struggle to surf (unless they’re brand Beckam/Kutcher or Fry - and that might be an untapped area… sponsored product placement in the big twitter feed… Stephen Fry: “Lovely new flavour of Twinings in my cupboard, can’t get enough of it” or Ashtun Kutcher “here’s another photo of Demi in her Gucci bikini”).
May 15th, 2009 at 9:17 am
[...] your post: The great media debate – evolution or revolution you [...]
May 15th, 2009 at 10:44 am
I’ve learned from experience that there’s usually no arguing with people who think twitter is inherently trivial. They’re also the people least likely to use it well, so they’re not a massive loss to the network either!
But I would say that I think one mistake being made here is to assume that success conditions on Twitter involve a large following. To use it - and any social media tool - well, your first question shouldn’t be “how can I get 100,000 followers?”, it should be “what can I do with 100? or 1000?” For some brands, the answer will be “not a lot”. But if the right 100 people are following you, or reading your blog, you can get quite a lot of value. Even if, as Nigel says, that value is skewed towards “personal brands” rather than business brands. (But using Twitter well will probably involve blurring that difference.)
I’ve heard the “but my competitors will follow me” line of argument before, too. Just follow them back!
May 15th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Hi Tom, just to be clear, I am not suggesting Twitter is inherently trivial. I can see the value on a personal and business basis. I just have a hard time figuring out how you might use it to engage a worthwhile number of consumers with it. I actually do not find Gideon’s celebrity sponsorhip that absurd…I am sure a brand will try it sometime soon!
May 15th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Sorry Nigel - that was aimed at Gideon, who seemed to think Twitter is all small talk and sandwiches, not you, and I should have made that clear (or, indeed, not said it at all!)
Out of interest though, do you feel you’re engaging a worthwhile number of people with this blog - or is it the quality of the people reading, rather than the reach, that interests you? Twitter is no different - you just have a list of your readership. Which is still perhaps an argument for individuals using it, not brands, but as I say the divide between the two isn’t as wide as once it was.
May 15th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
You mean it isn’t all small talk and sandwiches?
I would love to get more people reading the blog and also get more people willing to engage in debate. As usual the number who appear to read it far outweighs the number who comment and rate the posts.
May 16th, 2009 at 4:37 am
Nigel, i think if you want a better answer to this question you’ll need to define (setting aside the question of budget)
0.who’s the audience
1. media - what level of interactivity is required to be included in social vs non-social media
2. what the objective: awareness/interest/desire/action (what kind of action: click, buzz, community aggregation, download, solve a problem, solicit feedback, watch/listen, call, visit, try,buy)
3, what metrics does one need to gather
4. who’s time schedule - consumer or brand timeline for contact initiation
each of those will come to define the more appropriate media and refocus the debate from 140 characters to understanding and pursuing the objective.
As a straight comparison with twitter, you might find that email can accomplish more with much less fuss and constraint
I share your lament about people commenting/rating - ironic given the medium’s ease of interactivity
May 17th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
[...] The question on every marketers mind: ‘can I use it to build my brand?’. In his blog, Nigel Hollis of research giant Milward Brown ventures to suggest that the answer is [...]
May 17th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
I would argue (as I do at http://blog.thinkscan.com/?p=33) that brand building requires positiive emotional associations, moreso than memories. And, like many of the other commentators, I believe that it’s just too soon to tell. It’s certainly possible to think of ways to generate positive emotional associations for a brand using social media. Yes, the format imposes new challenges. But isn’t that what the creative folks are for?
May 18th, 2009 at 7:19 am
With thanks to @AJ_ay_it; I would suggest that Innocent drinks is one good, early example of a brand using Twitter conversationally. The majority of their tweets seem to be direct responses to their followers; this is interprersed with a nice mix of tweets about Innocent happenings (eg. their agm). http://twitter.com/innocentdrinks. Who should do this will clearly vary by brand/ company. In cases such as this the ‘brand’ can legitimately blog. In other cases the tweets may be more compelling from one or more high profile individuals representing the brand/ company.
May 18th, 2009 at 7:42 am
Hi Eric, I am not sure there is a distinction between positive emotional associations and memories. After all, anything that becomes a memory has to have some emotional significance.
On your blog you make the point about Opra tweeting about home cooked meals. I am sure sales would jump but mostly because people already have positive associations with the idea of mom’s cooking. Maybe a series of tweets could actually create new impressions but it would take a lot of time and creativity to do so.
May 18th, 2009 at 7:48 am
But Nigel, doesn’t it take a lot of time and creativity to create new impressions via any medium?
May 18th, 2009 at 7:54 am
True. I guess we won’t know whether it is effective till someone tries it!
May 18th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Nigel, Thinkscan’s research shows that there is a difference between positive emotional associations and ‘memories’. Not all messages that create memories are effective at brand building. And some messages that do not generate recall ARE effective because they have nonetheless reinforced a positive emotional association.
The point I tried to make in my blog was simply that twitter COULD be used to create (or reinforce) positive associations. And yes, I agree it would take time and creativity.
May 26th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Without wanting to sound like a ping pong match… A response to Tom… Twitter is still a long way off the size of Facebook/Youtube. For tnformation on worldwide search volume, click here. For UK, click here. For USA, click here
For Alexa rankings, click here.
Twitter is clearly growing, and probably a great place to target early adopters… but at the same time the above graphs indicate Twitter’s not (yet) the social marketing holy grail. On the other hand, it does seem that Nigel’s social marketing posts (see previous Facebook ones) generate more debate and comments than anything else… so obviously we care about it.
May 29th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
[...] at Millward Brown – Nigel Hollis has also been asking questions (see here, here and here) regarding TV commercials making the point that despite media fragmentation it [...]