A reader disagreed with the example I used to illustrate my third point in Monday’s post. In an effort to keep the comments on that post loosely focused on the topic, I thought I’d address the question and share my point of view in a new post.
(It may be helpful to click through and read the example, as well as the comment.)
Here’s my take. And I’d really appreciate yours in the comments. There are lots of gray areas in the online world.
One of the shared concerns was whether the message board users would wonder what the client’s true intentions were if they also sponsored the message board.
In my opinion, any client’s true intentions of engaging in social media is, ultimately, self serving. There are brands that engage in social media well and go beyond expectations to deliver value within the social communities. BUT, they do so because it can positively affect their business and future success.
Isn’t that what we social media proponents sell? Dialogue with customers. Keeping a pulse on the conversation. Humanizing your brand. Edging out the competition in customer service. All to help ensure the health and welfare of your brand. That’s the ultimate reason companies are diving into social media.
Forum sponsorships and online advertising aren’t the right way to show up in many social networks, but it is acceptable by the communing members of some. In those instances, I see nothing wrong with suggesting that a client sponsor said message board, for example. The brand is helping provide – financially – the means by which those folks have a place to gather, so there’s value in providing that.
As an offline example, let’s say the CEO of your client landed the keynote speech at a great industry conference. And the client is also a platinum sponsor of said conference. The CEO sticks around after her speech to engage one-on-one with attendees, answer questions, etc. Does everyone discount her patience, openness, kindness because the company’s logo was on the conference tote bag? I’d say no. Her connecting in authentic ways will win over more advocates for the brand.
I know that many social media gurus decry any form of advertising within social media outposts. I think that’s an unwarranted extreme. There are places where the value your brand provides from an engagement standpoint can be supplemented with sponsorships and the like. There’s no reason to throw out the baby with the bath water, in my book.
What do you think? Should brands never sponsor or advertise in social media circles?
*To clarify, I’m a big opponent of using social media as another place to push marketing messages. Don’t get on Twitter just to share links about your latest product launch. Don’t start blogging only to copy/paste your latest news releases. Brands need to add value to the social communities where they engage. My point on this particular topic is that, in many cases, there’s more than one way to add value.
*Image by Striatic.
David spends his days focused on marketing communications strategies and execution. He blogs here regularly about integrated communications, PR and social media.
{ 24 comments… read them below or add one }
I don’t think I would go as far as to say brands should ‘never’ advertise in social media, but I don’t think it should be their first priority.
Social media is best used for two-way communications purposes. Many people have turned to social media outlets to get away from top-down, one-way messages (especially advertisments).
Still, there are some instances when it may be appropriate (i.e. sponsored forums/message boards). But overall, social media is probably not the best place for a brand to advertise. Brands should use the power of content marketing in the social media era instead of using the same old tricks in a new medium.
-JGrass
I agree that the focus shouldn’t be on advertising. That’s not what I’m suggesting. (Hope that was clear).
My thought is that if the brand is there and adding value, are there additional ways it can add value and/or support its visibility that is acceptable by that particular online community, i.e. sponsorships, online advertising, etc.
On another note, if advertising should happen within social media, then most full-time bloggers couldn’t blog full time. The reason Heather Armstrong can focus 100% of her time on dooce.com is because she generates enough ad revenue on her blog to do that.
David –
Sorry I’m so late getting on here with my thoughts. Thanks for following up following my comments about your previous post (FULL TRANSPARENCY: I was the commenter David was alluding to who had a beef about his suggestion that companies advertise on social media platforms).
I definitely think you summed it up well with your thoughts in this post, and others have provided some good insight, as well, so I won’t rehash what has already been said.
I believe that as long as advertising by companies on social media platforms is done in a sincere and ethical manner (i.e. not disparaging your competitor), then yeah, I really don’t have a problem with it. Like Scott said with the third comment on here, social media is still kind of in an “Wild West” area right now, so now one is really exactly sure how anyone will react to certain strategies. Based off that statement, and some more thought on my own, I would say if your intentions are sincere and you really are looking to connect with users, potential clients and maybe even your competitors, then by all means, go ahead and advertise on social media platforms.
Great insight as always! Thanks.
Keith
Considering the social media space is still the Wild West, words like “never” and “best used” seem a little premature to me.
While the social element of social media suggests conversation, interaction and two-way (or multi-way) communication, the media element reminds us that we’re still talking about a means for reaching and influencing people. And, yes, at times, advertising is the most effective or most efficient method.
The challenge, of course, is knowing when an advertisement is the best tactic, and also knowing when it might work against you.
I participate on several social platforms where ads are present. Not only am I tolerant of them, I appreciate them. They subsidize the platform I’m using, and often they introduce me to a product or service I need.
It’s time we stop looking at all advertising as an evil. Our negative emotional response to advertising, writ large, masks the fact that it’s important to growing a business and helps all of us make our purchasing decisions.
“They subsidize the platform I’m using, and often they introduce me to a product or service I need.”
Exactly one of my points. I see the subsidizing part as adding significant value since the particular network I value so much may not exist without it.
I agree, David. I enjoy participating in the on-going discussion to define social media, but I can guarantee that companies care more about success and survival that whether they are committing a social media foul, according to SM experts.
As an example – I’m somewhat annoyed by all the product placement in movies and TV shows, but someone out there believes it works. Thus, the practice continues.
SM is not immune to ads and marketing, it’s just not. If services like Twitter and FB start charging users, then we can all send an email to customer service threatening to cancel if they don’t remove the ads. Until then, there’s really no argument here.
Right on, Terry. If it works, no advertising executive will care if the Social Media Rulemakers deem their advertising intrusive. This is business, not a free-for-all.
David, I think you make a good point. When the advertising is offering something of value, why should it matter how it got there.
I know there has been some backlash with regards to advertising and marketing infiltrating social media. It will undoubtedly change the landscape somewhat, but it is an inevitability. Other aspects of our lives are well saturated by the marketing mix; those clever marketing and ad people out there are certainly going to find inroads to the social media world.
I think the main issue here with sponsored message boards and other examples is not whether they should or shouldn’t happen (they’re going to happen) but whether, like you said, they add value. Isn’t that the goal of our communications and products we support?
Hi David,
Totally agree with your post, and the clarification. Nicely done!
And I love that the CEO in your example is a ’she.’ Bravo.
Thanks, Jenifer
I believe that as long as you have unfiltered access to communicate your beliefs on the branded board then it should be treated the same as any other social network. Maybe the goal isn’t to craft the message in a PR sense but to allow the conversations to take place organically and create a dialog when a subscriber makes a valid point. (positive or negative)
Thanks, Will. That would be my recommend from the PR/engagement standpoint. Participate genuinely, serve as a resource, answer questions, point people to interesting things beyond your company/product, etc. Looking for additional ways to add value and show up there, like sponsorships and advertising, would be to supplement your engagement efforts.
I’ve seen this discussion many times, and, honestly, I just don’t get why so many people are opposed to advertising and promotion. Especially marcomm professionals. It’s extremely short-sighted, in my opinion, to say that businesspeople should not leverage their online connections to enhance their businesses.
In fact, I’ll take it a step further. Businesspeople who are spending appreciable time engaging in social media yet not promoting their businesses should stop immediately. Their precious time would be better spent doing something that will sustain and build their businesses.
“Businesspeople who are spending appreciable time engaging in social media yet not promoting their businesses should stop immediately. Their precious time would be better spent doing something that will sustain and build their businesses.”
Amen! That’s what I was trying to say by clarifying that every client’s true intentions is self-serving, by nature. You just hit the head of the nail more squarely. I couldn’t agree more.
If you are a business that wants to reach your customers there is no conceivable good reason for not advertising on Facebook. I won’t argue for or against any other platform, but Facebook allows you to be so targeted with your ads that you are reaching the exact people in your target demographic. Plus, people realize the wall between ads and interaction, they aren’t inextricably linked.
People seem to forget that no business is going to get involved in a social media platform if they can’t justify it by showing how it will make money directly or help make money in some fashion.
Let’s eliminate this fantasy that social media is a happy land with no sales people and no advertising. Almost every platform needs money to survive and up to this point, that is made via advertising. If you don’t do it, it might be your competitor who does.
David
I echo Lisa and Scott — too early for anyone to use extreme words like “never” and while it is very warm and fuzzy to think that brands are in SM to be nice, it’s not true. Zappos, Dell, JetBlue — the list goes on. There here because someone in their organization made a business case that by being here, they’d make more money.
I think the other thought I’d throw out is that I think a lot of this Advertising in SM = bad discussion is really a lot of semantics. For instance, in your post you jumped back and forth between advertising and sponsorship. I’d say those are two completely different activities.
One is designed to push a message and create a response (advertising) and the other is meant to indicate and claim credit for financial support of the content I the viewer am enjoying (sponsorship) for free or at a reduced cost.
While I can see how some folks would resent the former, I can’t see how anyone would ding a brand for the later. After all, art has been sponsored since the early ages and it doesn’t seem to have negatively affected the art world yet. IMHO
@TomMartin
Thanks for sharing your insights, Tom. It’s appreciated.
I agree that sponsorships and advertising are different. The original example I gave was to engage on the message board and recommend sponsoring said board as well as advertising within it. The commenter seemed to have concerns with anything beyond just engaging, so I kept both sponsorships and advertising in the conversation on this post.
I don’t know why anyone would think that any kind of communication platform or place where people congregate online is such sacred space as to be above commerce.
My thinking is that we’d all be better served if we stopped drawing arbitrary lines in the sand re: right and wrong, and instead focus on observing what works and what doesn’t work. Better yet, maybe I’m better off if everyone else continues to squabble over that while I keep my head down and focus on *what is* (rather than what should be) and get to work.
I agree with Shannon completely. In such a new medium that seems to transform each day it’s hard to say “this is what should be, and this is what shouldn’t be”. To me, I don’t think advertising on message boards wouldn’t be that big of a deal, but does it really matter what I think is a big deal or not? We should be looking at what works and what doesn’t.
What Shannon said.
No, seriously. She nailed exactly how I feel. There is nothing sacred in social media, only varying degrees of what works for any given company. And ultimately, the community votes with their attention and their wallets.
I think social media channels are just like any other media–if the medium can deliver the audience, there will always be an opportunity for brands to pay to reach that audience. Isn’t that the same concept that’s killing traditional outlets right now? Print subsciber rates continue to plummet. And the advertisers are moving and shifting their dollars to different vehicles. Really, why should these social media outlets/tools be all that different? I think the social media purists are similar to baseball purists, in a way. They’re holding on to these idealistic concepts that dont’ always necessarily jive with reality.
@arikhanson
I just think you have to be straight up when doing so. Otherwise you run the risk of being perceived as being disingenuous…which is more punishable then death in some circles of SM.
Although I haven’t applied this tactic with any of my clients (advertising on message boards) I do agree with your positioning and reasoning in doing so. Your analogy to speaking at a conference or trade show where you are a Platinum Sponsor is a great case & point.
Keep in mind that David isn’t suggesting advertising on any and every message board or discussion forum. He insists that this should only be done – “Forum sponsorships and online advertising aren’t the right way to show up in many social networks, but it is acceptable by the communing members of some. In those instances, I see nothing wrong with suggesting that a client sponsor said message board, for example. The brand is helping provide – financially – the means by which those folks have a place to gather, so there’s value in providing that.”
Kudos for bringing up a very great point about how businesses/organizations might be able to further leverage thier position online.
Matt Batt (@storyassistant)
Aren’t we always advertising on some level, regardless of the medium in which we choose to engage. Being open and upfront about it is a plus. Coming from a customer service perspective, I am curious why more companies do not implement social media into their client/customer relations. Providing great service through any channel can create word of mouth, which some may consider a form of advertising.
Thanks for the Information…..I agree with the above thought.Nice conversation is going on and I am very happy to be the part of this discussion….
Elenora