Why no single type of agency will own social media

There’s been a debate raging among agency-types and industry watchers for some time now: Who will “own” social media? The ad agencies? The PR agencies? The marketing firms? Digital shops? Or maybe specialty agencies who do nothing but social?

One argument holds that agencies are converging as they chase the significant movement in attention and budgets towards digital and social, and it’s an epic battle for which flavor of agency will “own” social media in the future (Jason Keath’s post is a great example in favor of PR; to which Valeria Maltoni has a well argued counterpoint. The debate goes on). But here’s the thing.

They are all wrong

Why? Because all those arguments are based on a single false premise: there is no one “right way” to do social media to the exclusion of others. Social media is not solely about reputation, conversation, or crisis management. It’s not only useful for engagement, word-of-mouth, viral, or branding.

Rather, social media is a hydra, a multi-headed way of thinking, connected by a common set of tools, platforms, and concepts, that impacts an organization in so many ways that no single type of agency can claim exclusive domain over it all.

How many heads does this thing have?

• Social media is an excellent tool for long-term reputation building, for story telling, and for crisis communications – the natural purview of public relations agencies.
• Social media is incredibly useful at branding, creating emotional attachments and personal connections with brands of all varieties – the domain of branding and ad agencies.
• Social media, tracked and expressed via engagement tactics and metrics, can be the cornerstone of a powerful relationship marketing program – the haunt of marketing agencies.
• Social media can be very effective as a medium for promotional and demand generation campaigns of incredible variety – making it a valid tool for ad, marketing, and digital agencies.

The mishmash occurring right now, as outlined in Forrester’s “Great Race” concept, is happening in part because of client demand and shifting budgets. There’s undeniably a shift going on in where the client dollars are flowing, and no agency wants to be caught on the wrong side of it. In the rush there’s a confusion as the boundaries blur and client marketers learn. But the seeming convergence of agency practices in social media is also happening because those agencies all – rightly – see the practical value of social media in achieving results in their own respective domains.

The PR guys need social media capabilities as it’s good for PR, while the marketing people need it because it’s a useful engagement strategy.

Is there overlap? Of course, and there will likely be indefinitely. The entire concept of social media is so new and evolving so rapidly that it’s hard to tell where social media for PR stops and social media for advertising or marketing begins. Within most client organizations the same confusion reigns, and that’s simply reflected outwards in how they currently select agencies to work with in the space.

But my underlying point remains: In the long term no single type of agency will ever “win” social media all up because social media itself is a useful tool for every agency, and most every discipline. Rather, smart agencies of all stripes will develop expertise in social as it relates to their own practices and as client organizations of all variety come to recognize the value it offers.

The Great Tweet Ad Debate

Ads in Twitter streams seems to be the hot topic du jour, brought into the tech mainstream most recently by a NY Times article “A Friend’s Tweet Could be an Ad,” referencing Twitter ad services such as Ad.ly and Likes.com.

To sum up the Times piece – there’s a ton of activity and opportunity for Twitter ads, alongside an equal dose of risk and uneasiness. Any time you find a communication channel that involves high volumes of messages and equally high volumes of opted-in followers of people they (in theory) trust or value, you’ll find ad folks salivating. You’ll also find people more than willing to dive in and take those ad dollars.

The uneasiness comes for both followers and tweeters – in a relationship implicitly built on trust and direct communication, do ads sour the mix?

After being quoted in the Times article saying he’d unfollow anyone who places ads in their Twitter streams, Robert Scoble weighed in again over the weekend with to clarify his stance:

In it I said I unfollow people who put ads in their Twitter stream. I should have been a little bit more clear. Putting ads in your stream, if you disclose them, won’t automatically get me to unfollow you, but it does cause me to look at the value I’m getting out of your stream.

My emphasis on “disclose” added, as I think that’s the key point, along with both volume and relevancy. Those three factors will determine whether I continue to follow someone who mixes ads with their normal tweets. Looking more closely:

1. Disclosure: This should be obvious. If you’re being paid to tweet something, let me know. Throw an #ad hashtag on the end, or lead with “AD”. Your choice, just be clear and consistent. Don’t open yourself up to the “paid duplicitous shill” accusations which plagued the introduction of paid blog posts a few years back.

2. Volume: Scoble recommends no more than 5% of your tweets should be ads; Likes.com is supposedly limiting their participants to no more than one ad every other day. The jury is definitely still out on this one, and it varies dramatically by the volume and frequency of your tweets, along with how commercial your Twitter stream is in the first place. Experiment, watch others you admire for how they do it, and listen to your followers. High twitter ad volume is the new spam – tread carefully.

3. Relevancy: If you’re known as an expert on books, limit your ads to book-related promotions. If your followers expect to hear your thoughts on gardening, don’t randomly spam them with ads on financial products, no matter how much they pay. Keep the ads relevant to your established expertise and the expectations of your followers.

Personally, I’m not a huge fan of in-tweet ads – I largely agree with Scoble though and certainly won’t unfollow someone simply for mixing a few well disclosed and highly relevant ads in, but will quickly drop you if you start to reek of spam.

Andy Beal posted a survey for his readers on the topic, and it seems to reflect the same kind of ambivalence, with 45% “Yes”, 21% “No” and 34% “Not Sure” responses to his question of “Will you unfollow those that place ads in their tweets?” (as of the time of this post)

As for brands and agencies: Twitter ads are something I’d recommend any brand or agency tread *extremely* carefully around. You don’t want to be one of the first case studies on how NOT to do Twitter ads, no matter how much you crave being innovative. Maintain tight control over the volume, placement, and relevancy of the ads you place and who you place them with, and quickly reconsider any service or ad network who doesn’t play by those rules.

Where Ivar’s thumbed a barnacle at transparency, and it worked

“He has been called the greatest self-promoter in the history of Seattle.” So said the Seattle Times this past September about Ivar Haglund, the founder of the Ivar’s seafood restaurant chain. The article goes on to describe the “discovery” of a barnacle encrusted billboard in the waters of Puget Sound out in front of downtown Seattle, supposedly put there in the 1950′s by a very forward looking Mr. Haglund.

He apparently foresaw the coming of a future of cross-Sound underwater ferries and a wonderful opportunity to promote his 75 cent cups of chowder. A local historian even chimed in, citing documents discovered in the company’s archives which supported the authenticity and hinted their might be more submerged billboards yet to be found.

A fantastic story, one which perfectly supported the Ivar brand, and garnered reams of local press coverage – and a 5-10% uptick in customer volume in the middle of a major recession.

Of course, it was all a hoax. A masterful joke played on the public, and the local media, by the crew at Ivar’s, the aforementioned local historian, and a local ad agency named Heckler Associates.

In this age of authenticity and transparency, was Ivar’s wrong in running with this oddball marketing campaign? After all, this wasn’t just some creative misdirection, or a hidden sponsor of some viral video. The company flat out lied, and even pulled in a credible historian to lie for them.

Shouldn’t they suffer some blowback or tarnish to their otherwise feel good reputation?

In this case, I’d have to say no. In an odd way, this blatant lie in support of a marketing campaign adds more to the Ivar’s brand – that of blatant, over-the-top, and creative ways to push some tasty clam chowder – than any wholly transparent social media or marketing effort I can think of.

The lie, in effect, makes them more authentic. Genius in its own way.

Photo via the linked Seattle Times article.