Just finished reading some articles on Rocketfish's recent Liminal report. I'm about to read through the report itself (and I'm sure I'll have something to say about that too), but for now, I've got something to say about the coverage and a long-standing opinion of mine.
In particular, MediaPost's article entitled: "Razorfish: Facebook, Twitter Don't Make Customers Feel Valued" starts off with the sentence: "While marketers have flocked to social platforms like Facebook and Twitter, consumers still don't view them as important ways to engage with the brand...." and goes on to state that most people still prefer to engage via email, word-of-mouth, or websites. Stating that the reason for that is because that's where the value is.
Great. I agree. Customers want value. So what's the big irritation for me? That we're surprised (as marketers, as businesses) when we treat social media as a big piece of collateral and then don't get results. Hello? When has yet another piece of collateral ever delivered results? That social media EVER was seen as a piece of marketing collateral is frustrating but perhaps not so surprising.
Collateral has become king in organizations as a way of communicating what a company offers, static websites continued this trend as they are also just one big brochure.
But social media and online interactions have changed the game. And we've taken an old response (marketing collateral) and used it to address a new medium (it worked for websites....so....).
But, as Ben Watson's post "Consumers don't want to engage with brands on Facebook and Twitter" points out:
Yeah Watson! Exactly again. We've got options here: interactivity, multi-channel chaos. It's fun. Finally being online is not a static store front...now it's the body and soul of your store. This is good news. Embrace it.
Social media is part of who you are as a business. It is a way for your customers to know you and you to help them when and if they need it. It is no different from a customer opening up your door and walking in to your bricks and mortar store. You say hello. You ask them how you can help. Do they want information? Find it for them (and please let it be as clear and simple as possible). Do they need help? Help them. If they say they're just looking. You let them look. AND you let them leave when they want. You never just shove marketing collateral at them over and over again. Over time you'll get to know the regulars, what they like, what they need. You'll reward your loyal customers. Maybe kick a couple to the curb. That's business.
We've let marketing collateral and a static relationship become how online businesses communicate with customers. But times have changed. It's no longer a face-less static relationship. Technology has opened the door.
We're back to the beginnings. Where people walked into our stores and talked to us. We've got to stop being afraid of talking back.
In particular, MediaPost's article entitled: "Razorfish: Facebook, Twitter Don't Make Customers Feel Valued" starts off with the sentence: "While marketers have flocked to social platforms like Facebook and Twitter, consumers still don't view them as important ways to engage with the brand...." and goes on to state that most people still prefer to engage via email, word-of-mouth, or websites. Stating that the reason for that is because that's where the value is.
Great. I agree. Customers want value. So what's the big irritation for me? That we're surprised (as marketers, as businesses) when we treat social media as a big piece of collateral and then don't get results. Hello? When has yet another piece of collateral ever delivered results? That social media EVER was seen as a piece of marketing collateral is frustrating but perhaps not so surprising.
Collateral has become king in organizations as a way of communicating what a company offers, static websites continued this trend as they are also just one big brochure.
But social media and online interactions have changed the game. And we've taken an old response (marketing collateral) and used it to address a new medium (it worked for websites....so....).
But, as Ben Watson's post "Consumers don't want to engage with brands on Facebook and Twitter" points out:
My take on this is that social media engagement itself has to have a reason....No kidding. It's not a touchpoint in a campaign, it is not another piece of collateral. Watson goes on to state:
Treating it as an experiment or side project makes it even harder to integrate down the road. We need to accept and embrace that we live in a multi-channel world and a multi-screen universe and that each one has strengths and weaknesses, but more importantly that each one needs to be able to 'see' the other.
Yeah Watson! Exactly again. We've got options here: interactivity, multi-channel chaos. It's fun. Finally being online is not a static store front...now it's the body and soul of your store. This is good news. Embrace it.
Social media is part of who you are as a business. It is a way for your customers to know you and you to help them when and if they need it. It is no different from a customer opening up your door and walking in to your bricks and mortar store. You say hello. You ask them how you can help. Do they want information? Find it for them (and please let it be as clear and simple as possible). Do they need help? Help them. If they say they're just looking. You let them look. AND you let them leave when they want. You never just shove marketing collateral at them over and over again. Over time you'll get to know the regulars, what they like, what they need. You'll reward your loyal customers. Maybe kick a couple to the curb. That's business.
We've let marketing collateral and a static relationship become how online businesses communicate with customers. But times have changed. It's no longer a face-less static relationship. Technology has opened the door.
We're back to the beginnings. Where people walked into our stores and talked to us. We've got to stop being afraid of talking back.
