Econsultancy’s code for confusion

Antony Mayfield of Brilliant Noise recently drew my attention to this piece by Peter Abraham of Econsultancy.  Antony is one of the relatively few people in my Thinkers Twitter list because he is one of the relatively few thinkers in the social digital space that are any good.  However, in this instance I have to disagree with his thinking because Antony called this a great piece.

I actually think it is just another piece of blah blah from a marketing or digital agency that is struggling to maintain relevance in a space they either do not really understand or do not want to understand.  Harsh words indeed – but hear me out. Continue reading →

Why social media is made for people with mild personality disorders

FireShot Screen Capture #237 - 'Idea Storm' - www_ideastorm_comOne of the great things about the social digital space is that it allows people to cultivate their obsessions while benefiting society as a result.  Before going any further, I should stress that there are, of course ways in which obsessions can also be cultivated in this space that do great damage to society, but I don’t think this fact should be used to obscure the positive advantages of obsessional behaviour – for they exist.

Here is an example, which features prominently in the e.book  (Social Media and The Three Per Cent Rule) I have just published.  There is a chap out there called Kachi Wachi Continue reading →

Social media: why P&G, Coca-Cola and Facebook might have got it wrong

Book cover 6x4Is it possible that organisations such as Procter & Gamble and Coca-Cola (and even Facebook) are headed in the wrong direction when it comes to working out social media?  Instead, could the very fact that such organisations are so accomplished in the practices of traditional marketing, mean that they are inhibited from developing an effective response in this new social media space?  Could it be that this new space is not really a media space at all?  Could it be that the idea of ‘reaching out’ and creating ‘engagement’ with consumers is a total waste of money and that value in the social digital space is created in an altogether different way?

These ideas and many others are explored in an e.book I have just published called ‘Social Media and The Three Per Cent Rule: how to succeed by not talking to 97 per cent of your audience‘.  Central to the book is the idea that traditional marketing is an activity designed for audiences because the media it has always worked with is an audience-based media.  The reason media is audience-based (mass media) is because it is expensive.  Social media is free.  It has liberated information (content) from an expensive means of distribution and this has also liberated marketing from the need to talk to audiences.  In fact it has created a requirement for all organisations to understand how to create cost effective relationships by talking to individuals or small groups.  However, very few organisations have grasped this, preferring to see the challenge as that of building audiences within the social digital space, so that audience-based approaches can continue to work.  This is because they have become wedded to audience-based relationships and are supported in this marriage by an entire industry which therefore has an interest it wants to preserve.

There are now two worlds: the world of the audience and the world of the individual.  One world is not going to replace the other; rather organisations have to work out how to operate in both worlds at the same time, because consumers, customers and citizens have no problem doing this.  And organisations cannot operate in the world of the individual by treating individuals as very small audiences, serving them up a diet of ‘engaging content’ or any other activity that comes from the world of mass marketing and communications.

The world of the individual is a very different space.  It is a world where people put trust in transparent processes more than they trust opaque institutions (including brands) and trust individuals with strange pseudonyms more than they trust their own friends.    It is a world where ideas benefit from the oxygen of probability, rather than the oxygen of publicity.  It is also a world where the belief that a platform such as Facebook can be worth $80 billion is not sustainable in the long-term.

Despite its strangeness, this is not a world which it is difficult to operate within, as I hope I spell out in the book. But it does involve letting go of comfortably familiar approaches and embracing new ideas: something many organisations and institutions (the big ones especially) are often reluctant to do.

Publishing…

publishingI have just hit the button to publish a book on Kindle.  It is strange that I felt such a flutter in the stomach as I hit that button, especially when I have hit the button so many times to publish a blog post.  Why does this feel different, especially since this is simply electronic publishing, there are no printing presses which are going to thunder into action.  Quite possibly this is a residual effect which stems from what I have previously called the sanctity of publication, but likewise, it could easily be about money: I have never asked anyone to pay anything for my words before.  There again, people pay me plenty of money to speak to them: in fact I am just about to leave for the airport on a speaking engagement which is going to pay me an amount  which could end up being not significantly less than that which I might receive from ‘publishing’ my book.

At the weekend I was speaking to a couple of friends who are book publishing professionals – editors or graphic designers.  They were appalled at the notion that I was ‘self publishing’ and designing my own book cover by saving a PowerPoint slide as a jpeg.  But as I asked them, what does the medium of print and all the associated mass-production effects, contribute to the people who might want to pay to read my words?  Nothing.  Pretty much everyone who might want to read it would own some form of e.reader by now and this allows me to play by the digital rules – by the post-Gutenberg rules (as I explain in the book).  I don’t have to lock up my content in a restrictive means of distribution, or at least it only has to be restrictive enough to put a price tag on it.

But it still feels like a sanctified moment! (Hence the need to commemorate it with a blog post).

A quick post about Yahoo, Tumblr and content marketing

Here is a good post about this deal by Robert Andrews in the Guardian.  He may be right and this deal is all about content marketing (although I think a large part of it may also be about the acquisition of a behavioural data pipeline).  Problem is – in the social space, people don’t want content as I have previously written, they want information.

The term native advertising is also a misnomer – a wolf in relatively transparent sheep’s clothing would be a better description.

Also – $1.1 billion for a business with $13 annual revenues?  Only a drowning man will pay that much for a straw.

A book is in the works

A number of people over the years have suggested that I write a book.  I always resisted the idea, but have finally succumbed, largely because I think we have now reached the point where Kindle publishing has reached a critical mass such that it is not necessary to incur the hassle of going into print with a book designed to reach a business audience.  Pretty much everyone I know who might be interested now has either a Kindle, tablet or iPad.  I also find that I prefer to read business books this way, because of the ability to digitally highlight and annotate the text.

I have actually nearly finished the draft (hence the hiatus in blog posting recently – all my writing mojo has been elsewhere deployed).  It will take as a starting point the post I recently wrote about The Three Per Cent Rule, but in reality will be an attempt to pull the various threads I write about in this blog into some coherent sort of theory.

Advanced social media training: Forget Facebook 2

A quick post to say that there are a few places left for the latest in my series of advanced social media training courses for local government, NGOs and third sector organisations.  It is taking place at the Hilton next to Wembley Stadium on May 30.  Details here http://forgetfacebook2.eventbrite.co.uk/#

The three per cent rule: why social media is no good for reaching 97 per cent of your audience

3 per centAt the end of last year I was teaching a session on social media in a masters of communication course at the London campus of the European Communication School.  In total I was lecturing to 30 students in two groups.  Most of the students were French or Belgian and in their early twenties.  At the start of the course I conducted an exercise designed to define how  people actually use Facebook, based on the students’ own experiences.   What this exercise revealed was that everyone used Facebook to keep in contact with their friends and that this activity constituted the vast majority of the time spent on Facebook.  No real surprise there.

I then looked at engagement with brands.  Of the 30, only three confessed that they used Facebook to have any sort of contact with brands and of these three, two only did this in response to some form of incentive – getting freebies, entering competitions etc.  And only one person said that they used Facebook to follow brands in any proactive way – albeit time spent doing this was very small, compared to time spent keeping in contact with friends.

I also suspect I am being generous here.  The group I was talking to (early twenties graduates) comprised people who are probably the most engaged with social media generally.  If we were talking an audience more typical for most consumer products we would more likely find that one in 30 (i.e. three per cent) coming in at somewhere closer to one per cent.  This is, of course, just one sample – but I expect that the numbers I was generating hear are not wildly out of line with a more general case.  In fact, I am tempted to do a bit of work to try and bear this out.

These are not especially surprising results – I suspect they would resonate with almost everyone’s personal usage of Facebook (possibly with social media in general).  However, another way of looking at these results is to say that while 100 per cent of your consumers may be on Facebook, you could only ever use Facebook to reach 3 per cent of them.  Or to put it another way, a Facebook page is a way of not reaching 97 per cent of your audience.  Just imagine creating a new campaign and your media agency then coming to you with a plan which didn’t reach 97 per cent of your audience.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with reaching less that three per cent of your audience – provided what you do with this three per cent generates significantly more value per contact, that the type of value we are accustomed to generating when we are seeking to reach 100 per cent of our audience.  In fact all effective social media strategies are defined by the fact that they are focused, at any one time, on individuals or very small groups and fractions of a total audience.

This is all obvious stuff – but it is not apparently obvious.  Most organisations are still approaching Facebook, and social media generally, with approaches that are designed for audiences, rather than individuals.  They still believe, for example, that the name of the game is content – forgetting that content is a concept that only works with an audience.   They still believe that it is a good idea to run competitions in Facebook, because this activity is proven to create the most Facebook engagement, forgetting that there is no point in running a competition that more than 97 per cent of your audience will never see.  But perhaps if brands are so keen to export traditional marketing approaches into social media, if we also export traditional media planning approaches into this space (i.e. advocating the design of campaigns that reach basically no-one) – this is a way of highlighting the errors of this thinking in a way which people can understand.

P.S. I first published this, in error as a page – which I will keep (but remove from navigation) in order to preserve its link, which several people RT’d

 

The above is what I think. This is what I do

http://richardstacy.com/advanced-social-media-training

A thought about Margaret Thatcher, three legged stools and the car industry

Margaret Thatcher’s strength was as a conviction politician, driven by a belief in the qualities of self-reliance, hard work and determination. It was these qualities, applied to herself, which propelled her to success, created her appeal and defined what it is we now call Thatcherism. Margaret Thatcher’s weakness was a failure to recognise that, admirable thought these qualities are, championing them in isolation is not sufficient to create the basis of a healthy society and economy.

It is currently fashionable to ask why it is that Britain, unlike Germany, no longer has a flourishing manufacturing sector, especially since right-of-centre politics in Germany, best expressed by the current Chancellor Angela Merkel, mirrors much of Thatcherite values. The reason is that socially conservative Germany, unlike socially conservative Britain, did not make Thatcher’s mistake. German leaders, such as Helmut Kohl realised that while it was a mistake for the State to control large swathes of industry, this did not mean that the State should surrender its role in entirety to a deregulated free market. Successive German governments have recognised that, even within a free market economy, government, capital and labour are three legs of the same stool. British governments, on the other hand, have seen their role as taking one side or the other in a battle between capital and labour – and no-one joined this battle more furiously than Margaret Thatcher.

We now know that you cannot simply roll-back The State, remove ‘rusting industries’ and deregulate labour and financial markets in the belief that you are thus creating a pristine space in which the virtuous qualities of individualism will flourish, drifting in on the beneficial winds of the free market. As any gardener or farmer will tell you, you can prepare a seedbed, but unless you sow it with something and then tend to it, all you will end up with is weeds.

The last 30 years have shown that if you pursue a Thatcherite approach, as admirable as its values might seem at the time, all you end up creating is a society which allows the most aggressive and self-interested to reach the top of both politics and business. A society which has a denuded sense of collective interest or responsibility, a society where everyone is compelled to be in it for themselves, a society where wealth is associated with virtue and poverty is a sin. And also a society which doesn’t have a car industry.

P.S. I know this isn’t really about social media, or social media training – but I felt compelled to throw my stone on the pile (and what is the point of having a blog if you can’t do that?)

Why social media is a dangerous concept

There is a hidden danger in the term social media.  It is dangerous because its name implies it can deliver all the benefits of media, but now with the added engagement opportunities that come with being social.  Media gives us scale, social gives us engagement – put the two together and we can now do engagement at scale.  Fantastic!

There is a problem though.  Unlike conventional media, social media does not have scale built into it and we can often forget this relatively obvious fact. Continue reading →