Digital articles of faith
Most disciplines, at some point in the course of their development, fall prey to their very own articles of faith. This is true of all things man is passionate about, from spirituality to war, from politics to mathematics, from geostrategy to literature and art: All develop different schools of thought, many of which eventually evolve into rivals. Hence we invariably arrive at Catholics vs. protestants, liberals vs. conservatives, nationalists vs. federalists, Macs vs. PCs, Pepsis vs. Cokes, Xbox360s vs. Nintendo wiis vs. Playstations 3, etc. Social media, if indeed we can call it a discipline (perhaps digital social communications is a better term for it, since “social media” describes the pipes, not the activities themselves) is no different: Some believe that the DSC discipline is purely about content (the “content is king” crowd). Others believe that the DSC discipline is a (digital) marketing function, while others still, view it as a PR function. And on and on and on.
Before companies even realized the potential of DSC and social media, this new frontier in communications was already being fought over, flag in hand, by various groups wishing to lay claim to the lion’s share of its ownership, and thus define it for the business world by their own unique standards.
If to name a thing is to own a thing, then to define it certainly drives the flag of ownership deeper into the ground for those who manage to get there first, which perhaps helps explain the fervor with which various schools of thought have been battling for philosophical supremacy in this newly discovered digital world.
The thing is, this race for ownership of social media and its intrinsic value – through the minting of its principal function(s) – is complete bullshit. From a business perspective, no specific function or department owns social media: Not marketing, not PR, not customer service, not digital. Just like the telephone and email – which both also differ from paid mass media in that they allow senders and recipients to communicate with one another – social media plugs into any and every business function with equal ease: Social media belongs on every desk, at every workstation, with an equal measure of risk, opportunity, and perhaps more importantly individual professional responsibility.
From marketing to HR, from digital advertising to billing, social media finds its uses defined by whomever logs on to any of its platforms at any given time. Whether they are doing research, sharing news, linking to a special promotion, live-tweeting a bank robbery from the inside, letting someone know they are running late for an appointment, posting videos of a crime as it is committed, asking for restaurant recommendations, having a religious or political debate, checking into one’s favorite coffee shop, posting photos of their new grandchild, breaking up with a boyfriend, connecting with academics and celebrities, following events you couldn’t attend or recruiting your dream team’s final missing piece, the medium is as pliable as it is versatile: It serves any and all purposes, not just the ones flag-bearers with something to sell would like you to draw your attention to.
The Tyranny of content
Is content really king? The answer depends on whether or not you make a living selling, editing, or monetizing content. Professional bloggers, for example, use “content” to generate revenue: A short but carefully crafted blog post with just the right title, coupled to a solid mailing list and a little SEO savvy, will attract readers. In the short term, more readers = more chances someone will click on an ad or affiliate link. In the long term, more visitors and more clicks = higher valuation for potential advertisers = more potential revenue per click. Is it any surprise then, that so many bloggers-turned-social media experts spend so much time pushing the supremacy of content?
As for media outlets whose entire revenue model is based upon a similar model (advertising), what used to be news has now become mere content as well. Why? Because easily digestible, easily shared content with catchy titles attracts views. Views = revenue. Clicks = revenue. The real product being sold is the advertising. “Content,” which used to be news, valuable insights, art, entertainment, even, is now simply the pull, the bait to the proverbial switch. If you have noticed a progressive weakening in the quality of articles on the web in the past year, it is because much of it has become mere “content:” Filler with which to plug the empty spaces between ads, stuff to make you look, but not think, just interesting enough in the first two seconds to make you click on a link, but not enough to grab you once you are there.
An increasing number of media outlets couldn’t care whether or not their articles are interesting, well written or worthy of their long history of quality, relevance and importance. It’s just the web, after all. Journalists are being replaced by bloggers, many of whom aren’t paid anyway. The web, for many such organizations, isn’t about quality. It is a parallel world in which news and insights have been replaced by mere content: The fast food version of a porterhouse steak. Cheap (and often free) crap people will consume with a breadth and velocity not compatible with quality. More and faster keep the wheels turning. Keeping the public interested by an everlasting churn of quickly produced, quickly published bits of content means more opportunities for traffic, unique visitors, time on site and clickthroughs. Capture those eyeballs as fast and as wide as possible. Grow those numbers as quickly as possible. Yipee! Get me more of that link bait/content.
Yes, for that world, content is king.
From tyranny to federation: Curing operational myopia in the social media world
And you know what? There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Ethically, it’s fine. Advertisers are happy, content producers and curators are happy, media outlets are happy, and the wheels keep right on turning, at least in the short term. But aside from the social mechanisms of new digital platforms – the shares, likes, retweets and digs that allow people to spread information through their networks – what the hell does any of this really have to do with being social?
Does setting up a discussion group on LinkedIn about a piece of content really stem from a desire to learn something from “the community”? Has Quora really been used to foster dialog by the content producers who used the platform to spread their product’s reach a little further? Or is it all still just another eyeball-capture play? In other words, has “social” simply become a new battlefront for the same old mass marketing it promised to transcend?
I ask this not to indict proponents of the “content is king” philosophy, but to remind you of three things:
- Motives drive interest. Not everyone who works with social media is motivated by the same impulses, outcomes and interests. Just like gamers and multi-level marketers don’t view or use the web in the same way, content professionals don’t view or use social media the same was customer service professionals. So take a step back. See the field from beyond their very focused (dare I say specialized) scope. Learn to discern biases so they don’t end up becoming your own.
- “Social” means different things to different people. The definition of the term as it applies to online uses (especially once operationalized) transcends the definition of the term as it relates to our lives offline – the definition we have known and understood for centuries. In the same way that a real world friend is not the same as someone you accept as a “friend” on Facebook, being social in the real world is not the same thing as a company being “social” on the twitternets. The familiarity of certain words, now used in a completely different context, can lead us down paths of false assumptions (and sometimes even impossible expectations). If you never assume that your definition of what it is to be “social” is the same definition used by a politician, a celebrity, a blogger, or a major consumer brand, you will be okay. If you make that assumption, get used to being disappointed.
- What works works. Social or not, “content” does plug giant holes between advertising banners on a computer screen. It attracts visitors and gives them something to share across their social networks. It is the fodder that motivates “likes” and “shares” and “tweets” and “digs” and “+1’s”. Opinions about what “social” should be or shouldn’t be are irrelevant. There is what works and what doesn’t work.
And since with different objectives come different tactics and activities, allowing for a pragmatic (rather than a philosophical) interpretation of what constitutes good social or bad social activities on the interwebs will give you an edge on the “either/or” crowd. Do what works. If all of it is 100% social and human, great. If it is 99% marketing and only 1% human or social, that’s great too. As long as it yields the right results, nobody really cares.
Do Huffpo and the AP really “engage” with their Twitter followers? No. Does that make their feed on Twitter any less relevant, any less effective, any less valuable? No. Ideally, you want to be as human and social as possible in these new channels. Of course you do. But not everything that happens within social channels needs to be about “engagement” and “conversations.” Broadcasting and messaging work well also. Every company is different. Every community is different. The ratio of push to pull, of monologue to dialogue, of sales to genuine human interactions has to be established by each company, by each Twitter account and Facebook page based on its own needs and circumstances.
In short, the “content is king” crowd has as much of a right to be there as the “customer is king” crowd, or the “engaging in real time is king” crowd, or the “listening is king” crowd. They all just need to understand that there is no king. There is no throne. There is no universal supremacy or hierarchy of purpose in the social space. Content, like engagement, are just two of many pieces on the chessboard. Two small kings in a federation of interwoven kingdoms, none of which can be effective without the other.
The social media salesmen
Every time I run into a so-called social media “expert” whose narrative seeks to counter this simple fact, every time I run into anyone bent on pushing a single element of digital social communications over the others, I know I am dealing with someone with something to sell.
“Content is king” usually comes from a crowd that makes money from content. “Measurement is king” usually comes from a crowd that makes money from measurement. “Engagement and conversations are king” usually comes from… “engagement experts” and “conversation strategists.” (Don’t laugh, these are real terms now.)
Look for the 360° approach. Look for analysis. Look for the professionals who will first audit your business for weaknesses, strengths, risks and opportunities. Look for people who can custom-build a social media integration program for your organization. Look for professionals who understand PR as well as customer service, and IT as well as HR. Look for people who can negotiate internal politics and drive buy-in, not just pontificate about how social business ought to work and how your company ought to change with the times. Look for people who understand that even antisocial company cultures can find a place in the world of social media without faking “being social,” and know how to make that work. Look for people who see the whole field.
Everyone else – the “social media marketing” and “social media content” salesmen – they aren’t selling anything new. Just the same old trinkets that have always been around since long before the internet. Creative has been repackaged as “content.” Editors have been replaced by “content strategists.” Web has been replaced by “social media.” Same stuff, simply repackaged to fit into a new demand pipeline.
Same old pig, new lipstick. Everyone has something to sell. Remember that next time someone tries to sell you on the notion that their little corner of social or digital rules the others.
(To be continued…)
Amazing… The many lessons into one blog post. Out of this blog I have been able to explain to many others things that I had no way of explaining.
That various examples on how people see social or how a platform has different uses depending on the person, moment etc is key.
I do agree motives drive interest and many people try to drive popularity contests in search of an interest and then they complain when it does not work.
I am always trying to search for new things. I use to create blogs and websites in drupal now I see if WordPress or any other platform is more convenient. I also get scared by individuals that want to use one framework like let’s say guys that live by using Joomla for a website. The same thing happens with those that want to use one element instead of various.
Excellent post!
Thanks, man. I don’t mind specialization. Joomla specialists rock, just like WordPress specialists and Drupal specialists. At least as long as they know when to say “you know, what you need for this site is actually NOT what we do. Let me recommend someone who can help you.”
Specialization is great. Opportunism isn’t. 😉
Glad the blog helps once in a while.
Bravo and Amen. Everytime I try to quit you, you have to go and write something brilliant like this. ; )
Talk about a blogasm…found myself screaming Yes! Yes! like Meg Ryan in the diner scene.
I need a cigarette. And a nap.
Please try to quit me every 2-3 days, so I can write brilliant posts 2-3 times per week. Thanks, man. 🙂
Oliver, one of the best #socialbusiness posts we @iGo2Group have read this year! Well done on the comprehensive summary and pointers!
Thanks, man.
Monetization models on the web are still immature. Change those and alot of things might change.
Yeah, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out how these models should evolve. Too many people fighting over the low-hanging fruit = a race to the bottom. It sucks. They could make more money AND produce better content (for starters). It’s a shame we still have to deal with this crap.
Olivier,
How does your brain think this stuff? Not just the awesomely intense analysis but the pithy dialogue that keeps me reading word after word. I’m not selling social media, I’m a blogger who also is a lawyer. But the genius you’ve packed into this post is like a dissertation written on a napkin. So succinct and insightful.
One of these days I look forward to meeting you in person, and when I do I hope I don’t make a complete fool of myself.
Thank you for putting your thoughts out there for all of us to read.
Kindly,
Sara
Wow. Well, thank you. This particular piece was written last week, when I found myself without internet for like, 9 days. (Ironic.) 😉
I LOVE this post- very honest and very true. While I agree with what you said about a lot of online content being ‘the fast food version of a porterhouse steak’, I am quite confident that in time people will want their steak again.
I have been working in digital for a year and spend a lot of time reading industry news online. At the beginning I was grateful for the abundance of easy-to-read information as well as the content aggregation sites that made it all so easy to find and interact with. But a few months in stories started getting repetitive, the rush to tweet became transparent and the need to be a part of the social media game obviously unauthentic for some. But what that did was made me appreciate the original content creators even more. It enhanced my ability to sift through the BS and go straight for the good stuff.
Like with any industry or any product there is always saturation. For every room full of people there may only be one or two worth having a real conversation with- but if you are someone interested in having that conversation, someone interested in eating the delicious porterhouse steak- you’re going to walk right by the fast food restaurant, right by the boring beautiful person with nothing to say and go after the good stuff.
Very true. Especially “what that did was made me appreciate the original content creators even more. It enhanced my ability to sift through the BS and go straight for the good stuff.”
Keep on rockin’ in the free world, sir. Awesome stuff. Appreciated.
I’ve been looking for a good term to replace “social media” for so long, DSC is perfect. I mean, digital social communications – THAT’S WHAT ALL THIS IS. NOTHING MORE. Word is born.
DSC is simply the latest in a long line of communications tools. It is the evolution of email, the telephone, the face-to-face conversation with the next door neighbor. And it’s the democratization of information in such a way as to empower the individual to be less susceptible to the all but worthless bullshit being pushed by corporate shills. [queue rainbows, unicorns, caped chihuahuas, etc.]
It’s not rocket science. You wouldn’t retain a consultant who advised the telephone or email was strictly for internal communication or for a single business unit’s use. Why would you buy into some self-proclaimed expert that a global communications platform capable of connecting anyone within your organization to pretty much anyone else in the world – prospect, principle, purveyor – was any different?
H4X.
Yep. You sum it up even better than I do. 🙂
Nah, I’ve just had a good teacher. 😉
Hell Yes!!!!
Hell yes is right. 😀
I read the WHOLE thing and it was a challenge because we are so programmed to skim and “Like” because it benefits us from whatever perspective. Europe is a good retreat to kick back and appreciate what people did before the f@#%$^& internet. There were amazing accomplishments. Mind blowing stuff was accomplished before technology. Really makes you evaluate what we are spewing out now. Best blog post I’ve read this year by far! Enjoy the rest of your summer!
Thanks, Wendy. 🙂
Watching France through my American family’s eyes is really interesting. One of the principal contrasts they keep bringing up between Europe (or at least France) and the US is the way both countries approach the concept of quality, starting with food. Every day, I hear the same thing from them: Why does the food taste so much better here? Bread, milk, meat, yogurt, mayonnaise… It all tastes better. Why?
Simple: Because people here would not accept crappy tasting food. That’s it. Food is too important to be of poor quality. They might lower their standards for a lot of things but they know where to draw the line.
There is also a strong intellectual culture here. Being caught embracing low quality ideas, low quality reasoning, low quality arguments, low quality food is a black mark on someone’s reputation. The community thinks less of you if you settle for crap food, if you dress like a slob, if you regurgitate dumb arguments you never took the time to reflect on yourself.
It’s a choice, though. I could just as easily write crap content too, pepper my blog with affiliate links and ads, and use this little bit of web real estate as a golden goose. Nothing would be easier for me than to write daily bits of derivative bullshit like “Top 5 ways to become a social media rock star” or “Best practices for building a personal brand using Quora and Google +.” Except I couldn’t live with myself. That isn’t what I am here to do. I am not here to make money from social media. I am here to make it better. To learn and teach and raise standards. To clear away the bullshit and the scams and the bad advice. I don’t spend half my day poring over my Google Analytics to figure out how to squeeze another $500/month in affiliate revenue out of my blog. Not that there is anything wrong with it, but it’s just not why I do this.
I’m not perfect, and I am far from always being right about everything, but I at least try to keep some degree of integrity and perspective.
Integrity: I am not going to start creating crap “content” because it is easier and more lucrative. That would make me the worst kind of turncoat, a hypocrite and a horrible stain on my family name. I won’t do that. I am here to reach upward, not downward. If I wanted easy and lucrative, I would have stayed in the corporate world. I had a desk there, and a schedule, and a steady paycheck. All I had to do was kiss ass, make my goals, say something intelligent once in a while, and not take a stand on anything. That’s just not what I want my life to be about.
Perspective: I am not thinking about six days or six months from now. I am thinking 10, 20, 40 years from now. That’s the scope. If I sell out for a little bit of cash, if I betray your trust so quickly for something as common as money or status or a little seat at the SxSW country club, where do you think I will be in 10 years? Nowhere. I’ll be a corporate motivational speaker. That isn’t what I want either.
Ooops. I’ve been rambling again. Sorry. 😀
Your consistent, pragmatic grasp of the big picture, and your ability to make it so clear and powerful, it absolutely golden.
Thank you.
And thank you, Terri, for noticing. 🙂
pure gold, as usual.
‘There is what works and what doesn’t work.’
I’ve been using a similar line recently, courtesy of Kieth Richards
‘It’s either that’s the shit, or that isn’t the shit, and there’s a definite line between what the shit is and what isn’t the shit’.
😀 I like that.
Man you set a high bar. What a post! I am sometimes asked to implement a particular tactic before being given the opportunity to get a broader grasp of a business’ needs. It can be difficult but I always try to show the benefits of the bigger picture. It’s always is quite clear when people dig in on generalities where their bread is buttered.
Well, as long as you can identify a legitimate goal, maybe even set a target, you can get it done. That’s a start. Little targeted wins help you convince execs to give you a bigger sandbox. Sometimes, that’s how you have to do it.
Yours is probably the most fair-handed analysis I’ve read on the social media sphere.
Myself being new to everything, I’m still exploring and figuring out what happens to be right for me–for what I want to do. I’ve seen arguments between factions already and have been subjected to being categorized into one. Not really a comfortable feeling, especially as I don’t feel part of any style or category.
Because of these different factions, promoting different styles, I’ve saw fit to explore a form of each on my own blog–to see how it works and how people react. Again, it’s my exploring through experimentation. You can’t know how something works, or if it’s “you,” until you try it.
This helps a bit. Too many places have one style they promote or are biased against the others. Your analysis doesn’t invalidate one faction, or validate one above others, necessarily. I think that, instead of listening to others on what the right way may be and developing from there, I’ll start approaching it my own way and work out the kinks along the way.
So, thank you for that. I have a lot of work to do.