Defining Social Media Marketing

I don't like the Wikipedia definition of social media marketing, because it focuses too much on search and does not touch on corporate marketing or integration.  So let's try a new definition by thinking through the phrase "social media marketing," backwards:

• Marketing. A business function which exists to drive sales, by matching (sometimes generating) consumer need to company solutions, i.e. promotion that makes consumers aware of features and benefits, a product that fulfills a purpose, a price that the consumer is willing to pay, and a place where the solution can be obtained.
• Media. The plural of medium, a container or channel used to deliver content to individuals.
• Social. More accurately, socializing - interaction between individuals.  Call and response, idea and feedback.

Producing a definition of social media marketing:

"Interaction between individuals in [digital] delivery channels, exchanging content related to consumer needs and company solutions."

That's theory.  In practice, things start to break down and few marketers are operate in the conversational nirvana promised by social media evangelists.  Why?

• Media + Marketing. Inefficient traditional marketing, one-way delivery of sales messages.
• Social + Marketing. Unscalable marketing programs, limited by employee participation (when allowed) and uncontrollable community evangelism.
• Social + Media. Breaks when marketing content comes into play. Individuals interact by phone too, but dislike being dialed by telemarketers.

So social media marketing can be more precisely defined as:

"Interaction between a company and individual via [digital] delivery channels, intended to share commercial content that will lead to a sale and/or be passed along to others."

What am I missing here?  This sounds pretty much like traditional marketing to me.

Comments

[David Ross]

I see I have arrived late to the party, but I will offer a comment anyway. Everyone has made excellent contributions to this post, helping to flesh out the meaning of social media marketing. I think the only thing to really add at this point is to say that we must keep in mind how social media marketing is defined by a relatively untapped segmentation strategy: micro-segmented. In the past, we marketers have relied heavily upon using broad strategies - such as undifferentiated or segmented - to push out our messages. This is true whether you are using advertising, PR or other promotional channels, but social media marketing is unique in that it lets you market right down to the individual. Micro-segmenting has always been the "Holy Grail," but until recently, has never truly been attainable (without extremely hefty marketing budgets, that is). Businesses now have an incredible opportunity to market on a one-on-one level, with relative ease.

Thanks again for the post.

David Ross
Kocina Marketing Companies

[Peter Kim]

Graham - yes! Accountability is key. I think Pete Blackshaw has been taking the world down this path.

Ted - great quote.

[Ted Shelton]

"we defected from marketing and joined markets" - Doc Searls

[Ed Welch]

Peter:

Thanks for the link. I'll certainly add those resources to my research.

Best,

Ed

[GrahamHill]

Hi Peter

Here's a thought.

If Vargo & Lusch's thinking on Service-Dominant Logic is correct, marketing is gradually changing from something that believes 'value' is delivered at the point of sale, to something that believes value is created when the product sold gets used by customers. It is pretty obvious which of these perspectives customers believe. The customer perspective is well supported by academic research.

The implications for marketing are many, including that customers become co-creators of value as they use the products they have bought. And thus, that marketers need to maintain a dialogue with customers long after the point of sale. In the case of automobiles, anything up to five or more years afterwards.

Social media marketing, call it what you will, was almost tailor-made to fulfil this role. If marketers are willing to put down their megaphones and start listening to customers that is. Marketers actually talking to customers, and after they have already bought the product. Now there's a novelty.

Graham Hill
Independent CRM Consultant
Interim CRM Manager

Further Reading:

Vargo & Lusch, 'Competing through service: Insights from service-dominant logic'
http://www.sdlogic.net/LuschVargoObrien2007.pdf

[Peter Kim]

Hi Ed. I'm in total agreement with you, even if I don't know what a golden cookie is. You might find some of the thinking I've done on reinventing marketing helpful: http://www.beingpeterkim.com/2007/02/resources_on_re.html

[Zach Braiker]

Peter,

Thanks for starting this discussion.

You're forgetting that social media marketing requires a different touch than traditional marketing. There's an expectation that companies act more authentically in social networks than in other media and with other marketing tools.

I am not suggesting that it's acceptable to be opaque or deceptive in tv, radio, print or direct mail. However, in these medium customers don't talk back to you in the same way they can and do in social media.

There are also different ways to measure value in social media, especially as it pertains to attention. If a company produces helpful or interesting content, their customers subscribe--and if they don't, their customers ignore them. The ability for a customer to "vote" with their attention is different than traditional marketing.

Traditional marketing uses frequency and clarity of message to encourage customers to take an action, whereas in social media marketing, for example, a company might share a single compelling tweet and earn a follower instantly--without having to drill the message in the same way that traditional strategies do.

[Ed Welch]

Peter Kim:

By "golden cookie" I mean a very special solution to a particularly challenging problem using an unusual problem solving method. For instance, think radical. Einstein found a lot of golden cookies.

You're not satisfied with the current definition of "social media marketng" - nor am I. There's a reason for this - like myself - you sense major changes in the air - you see it happening before your eyes - we read about it every day. Yet, for some reason, nobody is offering a complete picture - too many holes in the story. You're looking to fill in some of those holes - otherwise you wouldn't have made this blog post to begin with. People are afraid of change, afraid to look foolish and be criticized.

If we're truly looking to define social media marketing in a way that will provide a useful foundation to work from for the next 10 years - we need to throw out some traditional assumptions and evolve some ideas.

First, I don't like the way many businesses view marketing today. Simply because they're using yesterdays ideas in today's world - won't work. Also, the definition of marketing in general is probably in need of an overhaul. It doesn't match the reality of changes in the way our world is working. People are watching less TV, more YouTube, tribalizing on Twitter and many other places. Clutter is increasingly higher and attention is harder to command - more and more each day.

Why would we want to mold "social media marketing" into a black box that will conveniently fit into the mindset of a business? It won't work. Why try?

Instead, why don't we allow social media to blossom and become what we know it will become anyway? The truth isn't what many want to hear - organizations will need to change significantly in order to take full advantage of what social media has to offer over the next 10 years.

Marketing can no longer be viewed solely as an "activity" or a strategy. Marketing needs to be viewed as an attitude (or mindset) to be acted out by every employee - from the janitor to the CEO. Businesses can no longer hide - marketing conversations can no longer be controlled - only participated in. Today, more than ever, businesses need allies in their tribes of customers and employees.

Those businesses that choose to accept these new realities will prosper and those that don't will eventually fail. If you think I'm full of hot air - make a note of this response and refer to it in 10 years.

The best way to understand the next 10 years of social media marketing is to understand modern tribal behavior. The internet, and many social media tools such as Twitter have enabled people to become tribal again.

This is a topic near and dear to my heart and one I'll be researching and writing about for some time to come.

I think I'll continue this in a blog post. If you're interested in reading it let me know and I'll alert you to it.

Thanks,

Ed

[Robert Davis]

A few thoughts to add to the many excellent points already made here:

@Stefan, starting with the message and then looking for ways to distribute it assumes a monolithic meme that can then be "pushed," and I think that changing that assumption lies at the heart of figuring out how to "market" in all forms of participatory media, not just SM. To be more precise, consumers bring different mindsets and expectations to different types of interactions with media. Marketers need to figure out just what kind of role their brand can play in particular contexts -- there is no one role for each brand that is relevant across all media. Role intersects with brand position, but each is a distinct concept that needs definition.

On another point, consumers report they are less likely to mind brands playing a role in SM then theory leads us to believe - see latest from Opinion Research Corp via eMarketer here: http://www.emarketer.com/Article.aspx?id=1006622

[Peter Kim]

@Nicky - what about the UGC ad contests from the past two American Football Super Bowls? Isn't that traditional marketing accommodating UGC?

@Melissa - agree completely. An earlier draft of this post had a golf analogy and loosening one's grip.

@Ed - tell me more about what these "golden cookies" look like. I don't think I've ever seen them for sale at the local grocery store, just Oreos and the like.

@Todd - "in public"...a key differentiator to existing contacts, e.g. customer service. Now we're on to something.

@DaveMurr - the commenters citing AMA would argue that marketing can create value. I think in practice, one company's value is one consumer's spam. Is it just marketing that's broken?

@Angela - as Kelvin said, if you can measure it, you can manage it. Lots of people trying to crack this nut for social media marketing. (And marketing in general, too.)

@Helge - But why does Fiat do that? In order to sell more cars. I don't think every action has to result in a sale - different industries have different sales cycles, as you point out. For FMCG, it might be weekly. For auto, it might be 1.5 years. For real estate, it might be 10 years. But the fact remains - marketing and branding intend to SELL, whether directly or indirectly.

@Graham - I agree with you and believe the problem lies within the pursuit of short term results. So marketing often becomes a question of "what have you done for me lately?" rather than "what can I do for you today?"

[dominic]

I would say interaction between a company and its target communities....

By the way, one of the pb I see ( and we solve) is that the way company do social media today, it is more interaction between "individuals in the company" with individuals in communities.

Take any product marketing team in corp, they should really think at engagement strategies, sharing the workload, the knowledge, having experts on topic A participate on conversation on topic A, aso...

It doesn't mean "over marketing" its product but just being productive and effective in the relationship to communities.

[webassociati]

This ours opinion about foundamentals of SMM.
http://webassociati.com/?p=52

[Kasper Kristensen]

@Peter - well I think you have a point. The issue is probably the meaning of holistic and marketing. So much more of a company’s actions is now having an impact on sales. Hence drawing a line saying marketing is only actions resulting in near direct sales, is limiting your options as a marketer.

[Nicky]

I don't think there is a precise definitition. I also think that if you ask 10 people what they understand by social media marketing you'll get 10 different answers. Plus, the key difference about Social Media is User Generated Content.It's something traditional marketing doesn't have and can't really accommodate.

"I'd describe Social Media Marketing as simply this:

Any way in which you empower customers, clients, your audience, or your stakeholders to tell your brand's story by sharing their own opinions with others through text, images and video."

I was at a conference recently where the VP of Yahoo Canada spoke and this was his way of describing it. I think it summs it up pretty well.

[Melissa Ward]

To reference the analogy above, nurturing the tribe will increase market share. The caveat is, the only way anything nurtured can really grow is by loosening the reins.

The wall corporations bang their heads against time and again is control. To market effectively on the internet you have to be willing to let some of that go. Oh no – the message will be diluted, phhhhht.

Let the individuals within the corporation use the various social media channels thereby creating a real relationship with the consumer! They will no longer perceive themselves as being talked AT, but rather spoken to and more importantly listened to. Today’s marketing efforts must make a connection, create a relationship and generate trust.

Peter, IMO, your definition of Social Media Marketing above needs one small change “Interaction between an individual and individual.... ”

One of those individuals will be speaking on behalf of a corporation, becoming a reflection of its corporate culture. Finally something with personality to work with ;)

[Ed Welch]

Peter,

It seems to me you're thinking too linear. "Social Media Marketing" needs to start with your "tribe" and spread organically.

Think "out of the box" with me for a minute:

For marketing to truly harness the power of social media - one must focus on where the most effective marketing of today takes place. The answer is found in "word of mouth" marketing - the singular most powerful marketing force in existence today.

That said, why not harness the power of your tribe - you know - those people who are already using social media to talk about your business, products, services, blogs, etc.? This is where you'll find the golden cookies.

Care for your tribe, nurture them, let them know how much they mean to you. When everyone begins to understand this - business as we know it today will jump to an entirely new level. True marketing will be done by the tribe - not the business.

The golden cookies are there - all we need to do is go get them.

[Doug C.]

For me Twitter helped to expand my social and conversational skills. True, it's on the Web and you can only type 140 characters, but you have to start somewhere.

[Todd Defren]

Peter, the "difference" is found within your definition. You state:

"Interaction between a company and individual via [digital] delivery channels, intended to share commercial content that will lead to a sale and/or be passed along to others."

Before Social Media, it was arguably impossible (and certainly not cost-effective) for a company to interact with *individuals.* They relied on mass media to reach masses of individuals.

Social Media has allowed companies to reliably interact with one person at a time, and to feel efficient in doing so because they know that those interactions occur in a public (and persistent, via GOOG) forum, i.e., by marketing to the individual, they impact a broader milieu.

Interesting topic and a good post.

[DaveMurr]

I applaud those who challenge the Wikipedia definition on anything let alone social media, and I would have to agree with the sentiment of previous comments.

The word marketing, in my opinion, should never be used with social media. Social media is transparent, or its supposed to be anyway. Marketing does not lead itself to be so open. And lets not forget the core essence of social media – value.

I prefer social media outreach - the use of social media tools and applications to engage with a specific or niche audience for the purpose of bringing awareness, value and building a reciprocal relationship.

[Angela Connor]

I like your definition, particularly the: "and/or be passed along to others."
I question though, how much that is valued by marketers because it isn't necessarily measurable. I am not a marketer, but I've seen many come into the online community that I manage and fail miserably. I've also seen some enter with great finesse and a willingness to get to know the culture of the community so they can get along and get the best return on their investment, which of course is time. I am discussing this very topic to the non-profit sector at the NC Center for Non-profits conference in Raleigh on Thursday.

[Helge Tennø]

I would agree here with Adrian and Graham, which articulates it really well.

Sales is not the goal of every interaction with or between customers. Creating desire is often a long term investment (Spring Research in the UK found it took 18 months to purchase a car), creating loyalty and relationships takes even longer.

Many brands need to invest in these "value creating" activities, to bring uniqueness and extra value into their brand.

Take Fiat eco:Drive, not a smart way to sell more cars, but a brilliant way to engage existing customers, help them connect and generate an immense database on your participants driving habits/patterns.
http://www.fiat.com/ecodrive/

[Graham Hill]

Hi Peter

I think Adrian has a point.

The 2007 AMA definition he provided makes it clear that marketing is about value exchange with customers, not just one-directional selling to them. And the exchange of value continues long after the initial sale.

One of the main reasons we find ourself in the current tragedy of the marketing commons is because of this short-sighted, one-directional approach. And social media, perhaps above all other variations on a marketing theme, is supremely reliant upon the receipt of conspicious value by customers that is sufficiently newsworthy to tell others.

I agree that the purpose of marketing is initially to create a lead, but marketers really have to earn each lead today through the continuous exchange of value.

Graham Hill
Independent CRM Consultant
Interim CRM Manager

[Peter Kim]

@Johannes, @Kasper - I think I need a better definition of what you mean by a "holistic" use, keeping the frame of reference of a corporate marketer using social media, NOT individual consumers. I believe you'll end up at Stefan's point - to marketers, holistic means integrated and channels each have their purpose for the same end result: to generate business.

So @Adrian - whether the approach is hard sell or soft sell, the end game remains the same - to sell. There's nothing wrong, deceptive, or negative about that. But I do think it's a stretch to apply the AMA definition broadly, as if Geico's caveman ads have any greater socially redeeming qualities.

@Nathan - agreed, companies must adjust. But can a business operate successfully in this media when participation as an individual is the requirement?

[Nathan Gilliatt]

Wading into the weeds a bit, one huge difference is the nature of these new media. For the first time, we're talking about media that are as available to individual consumers as to advertisers. The resulting power shift is a (the?) major reason companies have to adjust.

[Adrian Ho]

Hi Peter,

I think the issue is with your definition of marketing, and the end point of that marketing being sales. Although marketing clearly needs to support sales it can do so both directly and indirectly. While somewhat maligned, the AMA definition of marketing is broader and allows for more activities to fall within marketing:

"Marketing is the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large."

A host of "softer" marketing deliverables fall under this definition like customer care, customer service, education, etc. all of which are far better suited to social media than asking for a sale.

[Kasper Kristensen]

I agree with Johannes in his holistic observation. The reductionist approach of combining semantics is not going to get you to a constructive place.

Unlike traditional marketing, social media marketing is about working with the social part, and for me this is very much to do with ownership and filtering. Customers use other people as a filter. To use the filter you must work towards the feeling of ownership over the media piece such as a compelling/sympathetic message or having it being co constructed.

Broken down it may look like the same as traditional, but the impact and spreading is very different and this means the implications of it calls for a more holistic analysis and strategical use.

[Stefan Halley]

I don't see much of a difference between social marketing and traditional marketing. The conversations may be different but at the end of the day, it's still marketing. Develop your message and than find the best way to distribute it.

[Johannes Kleske]

I think the problem is to keep on thinking in marketing-terms. The realm of social media is so much more. For example there is tons of PR involved. And if you keep trying to divide PR and marketing in the social web, the chance of failing is pretty high. It's the same for talking about social media as just another channel. Things are much more complex and intertwined then before so my recommendation is to always approach the social web in a holistic way.