Social Media: The Fabric of Community

Time to acknowledge the obvious: few things have had as much impact on the fabric of marketing as has the emergence of "Social Media."  In his book - The Chaos Scenario (see video above) - author, AdAge columnist and NPR commentator Bob Garfield goes as far as heralding the end of mass marketing as we know it.

Overstatement?  We are, afterall, hinting at a significant change for some communication innovations that have helped shape our marketing world.  Print, radio, moving pictures, television -- cable news, for crying out loud.

While many organizations (and marketers, for that matter) wrestle with the function and role of Social Media, and more still will debate some or all of Garfield's conclusions, few will argue that things are changing.  Fast.  So, for strategists, marketers and C-suite corporate leaders, here's an abbreviated take on what is changing, and at least part of why Social Media seems to be growing exponentially at the heart of the change.

We've gone from "the audience is listening" (with apologies to the THX audio folks) to the audience is in control.  (The cynic might say the inmates are running the asylum.)  That's it.  In increasing numbers, the targets are taking control of marketing -- distribution, creative, messaging -- all of it, without even the slightest respect for where marketing resources have been invested or the precise wording of the official company tagline.

Garfield calls this "Listenomics."  No longer is the distribution of a video marketing message, for example, limited to those able to invest huge sums in costly video production and television ad time.  Today a customer or client -- satisfied or unsatisfied -- has access to global distribution channels.  And in case there are questions about the viability of Social Media's channels, just ask United Airlines what precipitated more quantifiable response; their own media campaign or the now infamous "United Breaks Guitars" video produced by a very unhappy customer, and distributed via YouTube.  (Video below.)

Put another way, with the emergence of Social Media, word-of-mouth marketing is all grown up.  We have always understood its potential.  In most professional service circles referrals were the only form of business development (though rarely referenced as "marketing") until the 90's.  Even in the midst of mass media's hayday, a cornerstone of brand development has always been the voice of the customer, client or target -- even though almost always the voice of a paid actor.

Social Media is about the fabric of community -- the dynamism of dialogue.  It is the authentic voice of the marketplace.  Strategic planning sessions and budget meetings are producing questions about how to address its role, and how to think about resources and ROI.  We'll leave thoughts on those questions for another post.  But for today the question for marketers and company/corporate leaders is not whether Social Media is relevant; rather, it is whether we can break from messages that insist our targets listen to us, engage in a dialogue, listen to the marketplace, and enjoy the benefits of the most effective form of marketing any of us has ever seen -- word-of-mouth, all grown up.

Conversations, Relationships & Renaming Social Media

There are, no doubt, a few good reasons for some business endeavors -- in particular, professional service enterprises -- to have concerns over the use of social media.  For example, lawyers, doctors and accountants cannot be perceived to be offering legal, medical or tax advice in any media marketing context -- social or otherwise.

I believe every concern I've heard can be addressed; but I'll also cop to believing the benefits of conversations with clients and targets far outweigh concerns -- provided, of course, ethical and regulatory issues are appropriately addressed.

Smoke screens notwithstanding, it is that "conversation" idea that may be the real road block.  Many company leaders -- from the C-Suite to the board room -- don't know what to do with so-called social media because it allows for instant feedback and (almost) forces conversation.  This is a far cry from a view of media efforts as one-way communication "campaigns," allowing for carefully framed messaging and perceived ultimate control.  (Nevermind the possibility that a message might completely miss its target while swallowing up huge amounts of company resources.)

So, to the degree that the idea of employing social media as a part of a marketing and communications strategy is problematic, here are three thoughts that might help us frame the discussion anew in the coming weeks.

1. The ultimate goal of any marketing effort should be two-fold: to enhance the brand, and to move forward on a continuum that leads to a new or deeper relationship with the target.  Nothing accelerates the establishment and deepening of relationship like the give-and-take of conversations.
2. Real-time feedback affords actionable marketing intelligence; and nothing is more "real-time" than a cnoversation with a constituent, client or target.
3. Any opportunity to engage with a target audience is an opportunity to deepen a relationship -- even when the opportunity emanates from an issue or problem.  The best company leaders recognize negative feedback as an opportunity to win.

If, to some significant degree, you believe these three points, we have 3/4ths of the framework for a new way to talk about social media.  The final piece?  Don't call it Social Media.  To the uniniated, the term "social media" conjurs images that, at best, have little to do with business.  At worst -- come on, you know what images at this end of the spectrum look like.  Change the discussion.  Create a new label.

One suggestion: focus on the fact (and build conversations around the idea) that relationships trump everything.  I believe our goal as marketing professionals and company leaders is to facilitate deep, meaningful relationships that endure.  Those relationships deliver return on investment...and become part of a customer-based marketing community.  That community will let us know, loudly and clearly, when customer experience and marketing  message do not align.

Put another way: if we hope to build relationships, we'd better have a platform for meaningful dialogue with clients and targets.

What's the new name for social media?  In my view it builds on the concepts of conversation and relationship.  My guess is what we call it changes, depending on the audience.  (Ghosts of Communication Theory 101.) 

Client Experience Will Always Speak Louder Than Any Marketing Message

A friend of mine who is fond of tweaking me at every opportunity used to frequently chirp, "I'm sorry Eric. What you do speaks so loud, I can't hear what you say." The older I become, the more I believe that this strikes at the heart of one of the half-dozen greatest challenges we face.

Overstatement? Consider a relationship with a significant other. Or how about in the context of parenting. It seems to me that in life's most critical relationships, the degree to which deeds and words are consistent is in direct correlation to the respect afforded.

To put it in marketing terms, this is the challenge for every brand -- personal or corporate: for proclaimations to square with the reality of experience. The result of a relatively frequent lack of alignment between message and experience is the deterioration of respect. And the bad news here is that this lack of respect can result in a new "brand promise" of unreliable, inconsistent, hypocritical. (Needless to say, this is a brand not easily changed.)

In today's professional services marketplace, where client service, customer satisfaction and loyalty programs occupy a position of prominence (rightfully so) in marketing strategies and messaging, it seems to me the challenge is magnified. In this environment, with relationshps so central to effective marketing, brand promises tend to be personal and tangible. Clients expect that marketing proclaimations and their own experience will be aligned. Misalignment (nevermind, dissonance) in today's "new normal" will be met with brand dismissal: what you do simply carries much more weight than what you say.

(And yet again I am reminded that equity building in relationships -- whether personal or in the context of marekting -- is based on a handful of the same undeniable principles.) 

Two Takes on Tiger's Tale

Full disclosure: I have enormous misgivings over even commenting on the current Tiger Woods story. From a completely personal point of view, I regret that we are so captivated by the sight of a train wreck. Rationalize any way you like; that is what is happening here -- and we simply refuse to turn away.


For the past two days we've heard every conceivable variation on "it's the public's right to know." The latest (and tax dollars notwithstanding, the most ridiculous) came from a Dallas/Fort Worth radio host this morning who reasoned that this is a legitimate matter of public concern because the fire hydrant that was struck was public property. Really? Is that the best we can do.


Let's just admit it; we cannot turn our eyes away from an accident. We love dirty laundry. Some of us are self-conscious about it, and avert our eyes when near the gossip rags at grocery check out stands; but when the communication channel (regardless of the source) is CNN or MSNBC or Fox News or an RSS feed, even the most personal of issues becomes worthy of "the public's right to know."


That reality saddens me beyond any ability to describe without sounding preachy. But that's one side of the tale.


The other how Tiger and, presumably his advisors have chosen to mismanage the communication. All feelings aside, this is a public story. And, though I hope I am wrong for the sake of the human beings involved, choosing to say nothing never, ever works.


Unfortunately, stories like this don't go away when a strategy of silence is embraced. They linger. And often become larger than life.


Great public relations and communication isn't about "spin" control. It is about coming to grips with and addressing reality. Whatever the story, here's hoping Tiger Woods listens to some seasoned communications and public relations advice soon. Only then will he and his family find the privacy and quiet they long for today.

The Thrill of the Chase vs. Drudgery of Dialogue

For many, the chase is simply easier than the work associated with building and nurturing lasting relationships. The chase offers variety, the thrill of an adrenaline rush, and - win or lose - it's off to the next pursuit. No working through misunderstandings and unrealized expectations.

No -- we're not talking about personal relationships -- any parallels notwithstanding. This is about business development.  And for some reason, many professional service organizations and providers invest disproportionate amounts of time and energy chasing prospects and irrestible "opportunities."

Disproportionate because, for the vast majority of consultants, lawyers, accountants and other service providers, the shortest path to revenue growth lies in meaningful conversations with existing clients.

This would seem to be of particular interest in today's marketplace -- where any growth is rare, and leveraging every investment is a must.

The math is simple. Deepening an existing client relationship is almost always a better investment than the costs -- hard and soft -- associated with the pursuit of a non-client target. Leverage an existing client relationship by a) broadening the services provided; and b) involving other team members, and not only are you on the road to increased revenue; you've also increased profitability.

Just in case I have to say it -- here goes: this is not a suggestion that we should not engage in the pursuit of new clients. It is to suggest to all of us leading business development efforts -- when we invest more in the pursuit of new opportunities than in the care and nurture of existing relationships, we may be victims of the thrill of the chase.

Relationships that endure and grow are the result of a calculated investment in the proactive art (and, yes - often drudgery) of dialogue.

(The same might be true in the personal relationship arena, as well!)

Is The Devil We Know Defining Our Message?

When it comes to communication that is critical to the future, it’s easy to let the negatives we know (and probably understand very well) completely determine the framework of important messages.

Case in point — when talking to my teenage daughter about dating, it’s difficult for me not to speak completely out of personal experience, framing the message in the context of the “devil” I know – ”I know exactly what boys have on their minds because I was one!” Few would dispute that my perspective is rooted in fact; there is no shortage of data points to support the message. But the problem (apart from the fact that my target audience has no interest in hearing this message) is that this one-dimensional message does little to help my daughter develop a perspective that helps her move into the future.

But enough painful confession. What does this have to do with our communication as leaders? Simply this: without exception, when communication is couched and “toned” only by data points of the past -- or for that matter, the present -- it will lack dimension, skew perspective, and seed a faulty response.


Absent a perspective that allows for (and prompts) vision, communication is either a recitation of history or an account of current conditions. If that data is less than stellar (consider how we communicate with our organizations in the context of recession), the chances are great that the devils we know have far too much influence on the message -- even when the message is future-looking.


Consider this: had the framework for Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address or poetic Second Inaugural been couched in the reality of the moment, his speeches would simply have decried the nation’s condition, and mourned those yet to die. Instead, Lincoln used the past only to raise the specter of a new vision.


Had Martin Luther King, Jr. addressed the throng speaking only out of experience, the “I have a dream” refrain would never have passed his lips.


And in the wake of the USSR having won the race to orbit the earth, JFK dared to stir the US with an unthinkable vision — to put a man on the moon.


Take a look at what these examples have in common.

• They do not gloss over or ignore the realities of the past;
• They broaden perspective;
• They speak of possibilities for the future;
• They call for participation.

Put another way — what Lincoln, King and Kennedy did was seed a vision. Some might suggest that known data points and vision represent opposite perspectives — that the former is grounded in fact and the later is right-side-of-the-brain creativity at its best . . . spin at worst. Yet, modern history’s pivotal moments are often marked by the communication of a leader who, unprepared for the past to define the future, was able to articulate a new view of the horizon.


Pivotal moments — whether in commerce, social enterprise or political endeavors – come when leaders understand that most of us are anxious to be done with the devils we have known. We simply need someone to help us with the vision of what might be.


As we work on marketing plans, budgets and staff assignments for 2010, we'll do well to temper what we know about the last year (and projections regarding coming months), and mix in the stuff of vision, dreams and audacious goals.

Win or Lose on Your Own Terms -- A Guest Blog

For more than twenty years Allen Fuqua has led marketing organizations and efforts in industries in the midst of high-consequence change, including healthcare, professional service consulting and most recently as a CMO in the legal industry. He is not only a colleague, but a friend; and - as the saying goes - most of what I learned about marketing, I learned from Allen. I'm pleased to welcome him as a Guest to this space, and encourage you to follow his musings on Twitter (@A_Fuqua). -- Eric Fletcher

As servants of an organization and the leadership of that organization, we often find ourselves within a reactive mode of management and execution. Short periods of that are understandable, but overtime the value we provide is eroded and our personal energy often diminishes dramatically.

So each of us must take a careful look at our own organization and make some decisions and accept some arithemetic. What are its strengths/weaknesses, our own personal capabilities, our role, the organization's expectations and our relationships within the organization? From that information and in order to be professionally authentic, you have to make two decisions:

1. You have to choose what (strategy, targets, relationships, etc) is most important and focus your best self there.

2. With apologies to Gene Krantz, failure is an option in business and usually not a career ender. (In fact, most of us have needed failure to learn great lessons and go on to better things.) There's always a chance things will explode and you will lose. You have to choose on what basis you can be fine with losing. This decision will allow you to focus your energies more efficiently and not act/react like a spineless functionary.

Let me give you some of mine:

1. What is most important:

• Growing my firm's Industry Group and Client Team revenue (note: this is separate from our Practice Groups and is consistent with our firm strategy.)
• Supporting my team: individually and collectively. I'm responsible for helping them grow professionally and being a success.
• Provide ideas, solutions and execution which further our firm's leadership's plan.
• We don't do any project, RFP, idea, event, etc without preapproved funding and an attorney champion on each. Even if we think it’s the right thing to do. (My work must be subject to the interest, will and approval of my shareholders. If that's not enough for me, I cease being a servant of the organization.)

2. On what basis am I comfortable losing:

• I can't please everyone. So I respond the best I can to the above priorities knowing it won't satisfy some people.
• They decide they don't like me or I'm not a good fit. If true, this would be for the best.
• I didn't play the politics correctly. I play the politics based on the priorities above. If that doesn't work, we let the chips fall.

Nothing sacred or holy about this list; just a place to stand and operate from. Make yours make sense for who you are and where your organization is.