We seem to think that some of the struggles we’re having in the dawn of a new media era are, well, new. And they simply aren’t. We’re reacting to issues that have ebbed and flowed for decades, but they’re clad in the bright shiny coating of technology and novelty.
Here’s a bit about what I mean.
1. Snake Oil Salesman & Self-Proclaimed Gurus
There have been charlatans, scam artists, and carpetbaggers in business since the dawn of time. (There seem to be a lot of them on informercials, too). The internet makes them really easy to see and hear, so we notice them a lot more. It also makes it really easy to turn them off. But their existence? Not new. At all.
As for the businesses that are at the “mercy” of those that are shilling nothing of substance? We need encourage due diligence, and continue illustrating what great work looks like so they can spot it when it happens, and avoid it when it doesn’t. Same as we would to help a friend spot a decent realtor from a crappy one, or a good financial planner from a thinly veiled MLM dork.
The war we’re waging on the charlatans themselves isn’t going to help much. Why? Because few people would call themselves a snake oil salesman, even if they are. So what we need to focus on instead is the character and appearance of good work, and help businesses understand what that looks like so they can research for themselves. And if they aren’t willing to spend the time and effort to do the research? Caviat emptor.
2. Inflated Titles
We rage against calling people “experts”. I’ve been labeled all sorts of things, not all of them kind, some of them downright silly. But personally, I don’t give a rip what people call themselves if they can get the job done. Accolades and labels of stature are really only valuable when someone else bestows them, anyway, based on their experience.
Gurus and experts are simply perception mechanisms. They’ll be judged not based on the title on their LinkedIn bio, but for the work they deliver to earn it. We’re not tired of the words, we’re tired of the unoriginality, the saturation, the droves of people who we don’t think “deserve” those titles. But I’ve got my eyes on my own paper over here.
3. Fixation on tools
Twitter is revolutionary. Facebook is everything. Google is transformational. We probably said the same things about email, the fax, websites, the phone, hell, electricity. We obsess over the mechanism because of what it enables. It’s an icon, an artifact, of the potential we see in its use. We just don’t always communicate that very well. So we make the tool synonymous with the outcome, and stick our attention on the surface instead of in the substance.
But its our job as those that claim such righteousness in this space to (as my smart friend Ben Kunz would say) redirect the focus from the tubes, and onto the ideas that flow through them. That’s OUR job.
4. Lack of Measurement Standards
My coauthor Jay Baer did this research for our upcoming book:
Number of web pages Google finds for the following phrases:
“direct mail ROI” – 131,000
“email ROI” 55,900
“radio ROI” – 33,200
“TV ROI” – 12,600 (television roi is just 291)
“magazine ROI” – 3,150
“newspaper ROI” – 210
“billboard ROI” – 85“social media ROI” – 796,000
We suddenly care an awful lot about measuring this new stuff when we haven’t demonstrated nearly the same urgency around measuring the rest of our work (or at least we haven’t been nearly as vocal about it). I’d be willing to wager those panicking the most over ROI are really shouting “please, help me make a business case for this in advance because I don’t understand how it’s useful and I need to convince someone with more rank and less risk tolerance than I have.” That’s a different discussion. What’s really at issue is that measuring anything in business and doing it consistently is a long-standing problem. We’re attaching this problem to social media because it’s the emergent issue of the day, not because measurement problems start and end here.
For those that DO have a measurement discipline in their organization, they’re working this out, one bit at a time, as the data becomes available and as they start connecting the dots. But they also accept that the investment and the testing based on educated hypothesis comes first, and the definitive measurement and data comes with time.
5. Paid Reviews & Endorsements
We buy sunglasses because Raquel Welch says she loves her Foster Grants. But do we vilify her for taking money to plug some shades? We read through advertorials in magazines written by obviously compensated or biased contributors. We’ve long accepted that editorial in a major publication often rides sidecar with buying advertising in that same publication. We accept free samples of stuff so we can try it out for ourselves and tell our friends. We’re a society wired to buy stuff because someone we know, trust, or otherwise view as an authority tells us to. We want help making our decisions about things and ideas, and we’ve long made peace with that.
Yet we scream bloody murder when someone takes $500 to write a blog review of a product, gets a book for free and has the gall to review it while they ooze bias, or puts their ebook up for the appalling price of $35 because “the internet should be free”. The humanity! The corruption!
What I think we’re really railing against is disclosure. It’s easy to hide on the internet. Pretend to be someone or something you’re not. What we struggle with is the potential subterfuge, not the idea that money is evil. We just want to know when it’s changing hands, so we can decide for ourselves what we think about it. I think that’s perfectly fair, but let’s aim the bullets at the right target.
Round and Round We Go…
It’s interesting to me the psychology behind some of these massive shifts in sociology, in culture, in business that we’re experiencing right now. It’s taking a lot of our preconceived notions and turning them on their head. It’s taking base assumptions we make about the world around us and challenging them at every turn. And it’s giving us yet another swing at the pinatas we haven’t been able to hit, so I think that renews our gusto for taking up the bat.
The ideas behind social media aren’t new, but the wardrobe is. And when we see a familiar face clad in all new clothes, it’s easy to mistake them for someone we never knew at all.
What I’d love is for us to slow down long enough to think a little harder about why we’re taking a swing at these things. Not in context of social media, but in context of business overall. Why do they recur? What are some of the base issues at play that we’re really trying to debate or solve? That, to me, would make for far more interesting and fruitful discussion.
Have you noticed this phenomenon? What else would you add?
I would consider separating Snake Oil Salesman & Self-Proclaimed Gurus as one has malicious intent I would group together with criminal activity and the other, self-proclaimed gurus, usually have good intentions, they are just unconsciously incompetent (they don't realize how much they don't know). The Self-Proclaimed can be dangerous also, but usually from ignorance. Great article, just trying to give you something.
If I had a dollar for every time I got stick for not giving away expertise for free I would have a good holiday savings fund at the very least. Just cos we use the internet does not mean that we do not have bills to pay, families to feed, or that what we say is of less value.
Good article : the new will always be blamed for old problems
Another one I love along the same lines is declaring a marketing tactic dead…
When I worked in email marketing, all the experts and industry people declared “direct mail marketing is dead!!!!”
Then of course along came blogs and email was dead… Then blogs were dead because of social networking sites…
The funny thing is ALL of those tactics still exist, are still effective when executed properly.
“What I think we’re really railing against is disclosure.”
I agree. Everyone has an agenda. The unprecedented availability of information may have made us more cynical than ever. It's becoming increasingly more difficult to find those who honestly have our best interests at heart. We've always asked the question, “What's in it for me?” But now, we're also asking the question, “What's in it for you?”
We can't blame social media on age old issues. I think social media just amplifies them making it for more to see.
At the risk of sounding like a groupie (which I cannot abide), I love the way you think. Another great post. Thanks for calling it like you see it!!
We may as well take a swing at human nature. Where there is an opportunity to exploit, some unscrupulous bastard will be more than happy to step up and oblige. It doesn't matter the industry, age, or audience – the basic underlying motivations are the same.
Maybe what we should be looking at is how people have overcome falling prey to these … See Morecharlatans and learn how to gird ourselves against their crafty wiles … and how to teach others to do the same – see past the smoke and mirrors, sniff out the snake oil.
Who care what these tricksters do if no one's falling for it?
The difference is “issues” and “events.” The events are essentially the noise that keeps us distracted and postulating. In an uproar and in the thick of things. The buzz. However, the issues are the fundamentals, the root cause. The stuff you can't fake.
It's a heck of a lot easier to stay focused on the noise and drama (the hype) than face the root causes. When all the eventful stuff is stripped away, we might not like what we see or what we have to acknowledge down there at the root.
Playground rules can apply to business: when you point your finger, there are four more pointing back at you.
Amber, I never looked at social media as being responsible for any of this. These issues are a fire that has burned since forever – social media is a bucket of gasoline that was thrown into it. Social media has just made it easier to practice these arts and promote them to a wider audience than traveling from town to town on your pony used to be. I don't get too worked up with all the self-proclaimed gurus because I know in the end, they'll all be exploited and have to move on to another hustle.
I found your point #4, however, to be most interesting. Surely someone's trying to make the case for social media ROI because they keep reading how social media is gonna save the world and that any company that doesn't have a social media plan in place is doomed and yada yada yada. To which I like your answer: “…investment and the testing based on educated hypothesis comes first, and the definitive measurement and data comes with time.” What that data will determine is anyone's guess. In the meantime, let's all just slow down for a minute and stick with some other theories that have also been around since forever (and that are proven to work): provide a good product/service at a competitive price, know the ins & outs of your product/service and deliver said product/service with exceptional customer service.
Nuff said.
Point 3 also raises the question of fixation with hype.
Overuse of adjectives and hyperbole is seriously damaging the impact of those words. Which are all the more important in a world where everyone has a brand name.
Self Proclaimed Guru is right! I am tired of experts coming out of the woodwork (Guru/Ninja/DragonSlayer) in their titles. Let actions speak louder than titles. Oh well, kind of like calling unemployed “In Transition”. /Rant Off.
Great post but, as a test, I just Googled for cheese ROI and got 353,000 results.
How does that affect your assessment of measurement standards? 😉
http://tinyurl.com/24adjmm
Amber,
This post goes a long way in reminding people that the space is younger than it likes to think it is and there are plenty of options, ideas, and actions that people can try out every once in awhile. At the end of the day, what works for one person doesn't always work for another.
Funny thing about the “expert” moniker. You're right. People might adopt it, but it doesn't mean they get any work for it or from it. Personally, I like using the “expert” moniker to describe some less than pretty ideas without ever having to name names. Other than that, to each their own.
Best,
Rich
ahh, but put that search in quotes my friend and it equals 63 results.
what's funny, is if you search “billboard roi” most of the results are still about social media. thus underlining jay's point.
cheers.
Great article. A good reminder that many of the issues we face in our digital world today have existed since the dawn of time and will continue to exist long after we've moved on to the next big thing… and have started blaming it for creating these same “new” problems.
As to #3, if we are to believe the old saying, no tools we're seeing now have yet to top sliced bread. It still remains the bellwether by which all other accomplishments are measured.
Amber, Love point 4.0 Lack of Measurement Standards. This is fascinating stuff, particularly the stats on Google web pages. You're absolutely right, Social Media is the new toy, people are consumed with it, the power it holds, and the revenues it can generate. Interestingly, beyond proof of concept, which I believe is where we are in the SM lifecycle, nobody really knows what it is or how it will evolve.
For serious organisations, SM is still being watched. The other media channels are doing the business. Soon SM will play a more significant part, but isn't ever going to be the whole show.
Opportunities for self-reinvention and brand re-invention are mesmerizing, especially for those who are frustrated with how they see themselves or their brand. Unfortunately, long term success takes meeting the opportunity with a clear head and some kind of vision. I personally love the way Wenlock and Mandeville re-invented a brand (the London 2012 Olympic mascots) on Twitter (@wenandman). Comcast famously went from the guy who fell asleep on a service call to “ComcastCares.”
I also enjoy brands or people who just show up to be a part of the party with no particular vision other than experimenting. The issues you raise can largely be put in the camp of those “rock stars” who, in the immortal words of Jeff Tweedy, “are just waiting for their cover to be blown.” Like a financial bubble, any reinvention platform (the wild West, a name change, a new market, the Internet) can only work if you manage to catch up to your inflated perceived value. I still have 300 shares of March First that say it doesn't happen often.
Fabulous. Just fabulous. The ROI schism is something oft discussed with “traditional media” marketing friends, that they don't have the same pressure to “prove ROI” on their magazine advertisement spaces, billboards or radio spots as we do in interactive media.
And something that I have learned is that social media requires many levels of compounding experience and a specific mentality of client, agency and/or businesspeople to develop it given the holes you have mentioned, here. It's still a new and growing concept and you have to really believe in the virtues of committing to it in the face of a void of harder facts.
didn't you hear? the movement of bloggers to subscription email newsletters is killing blogging and free email marketing….the wheels on the bus go round and round…
very very well written. Just write a post of my own after getting inspired from your point no. 4
http://www.blog.adityarao.name/stop-picking-on-…
I thoroughly enjoyed your post. I wanted to ask your permission to use the insight you provided here by Googling the ROIs for different advertising mediums. I wanted to include it in a presentation I'm creating currently, crediting you and linking to your blog of course. I think you summed it up perfectly. Do let me know. Thanks.
When it comes to measuring social media for some reason marketers expect more. Maybe it is because they are accustomed to direct correlations that are made with the web analytics tools we have available to us. But when you think about it measuring the effectiveness of radio, tv, print & outdoor isn't any better. Viewers/readers data is based on sampled data and surveys.
It's a double standard.
If I run you over with a car because I want to kill you, or I run you over with a car because I was texting someone and wasn't paying attention, you're equally dead. The difference is one of degree for me – the perpetrator – but not for you.
Great post, Amber. Let me focus on just one of these issues, though I've plenty experience with all. I worked for over twenty years in a rather staid aerospace company (the products we made were very exciting – rocket engines, big ones – but our business processes were as old as the hills and very risk-averse) and I think there were two big reasons why ROI suddenly came to the fore; at least where I was.
The first reason is that staying afloat was becoming harder and harder. Each year cuts in available funds made it harder and harder to justify the massive expenditures we had taken for granted during the fat times. So . . . ROI – like hunger after a big meal – became increasingly important. Couple this with a genuine fear that the time-honored command and control business model was seeing a viable (and powerful) challenge in the form of social media, and ROI became not merely a method for measuring the likelihood an effort would at least break even, but more of an offensive weapon, which allowed fearful and ignorant holders of the purse strings to say “NO” without really understanding what they were doing.
I can't speak so much for the commercial world, but I suspect the same holds true (to one degree or another) there as well. Good stuff. I'm glad Firefox saved this link through a couple of crashes 🙂 Thanks.
true Rick, but in the case of you choosing to kill me, that is a flaw in the individual that might not be fixable, but in the case of someone texting while driving, with proper education and guidance, you could help that person become a safe driver. Some people can be malicious predators of the weak and uneducated, while others are dangerous because they are uneducated. With regulations & education you can help the people who are just ignorant prevent repeating the same mistake. Sure the end result of the initial action might be the same, but one is easier to prevent from reoccurring, and so to me should be separated. Even the two actions you discussed would be treated today in a court of law, one is 1st degree murder while the other would be a lesser crime.
Agreed, Antony. The latter is likely Negligent Homicide. I just thought it important to show the results of the unconsciously incompetent can be quite devastating. Just look at what havoc the previous President of the U. S. wreaked. The fact that he might not have known exactly what he was doing and, to boot, has apparently been handsomely rewarded for it, doesn't change the pain the rest of us are enduring as a result.
Excellent post! You had me laughing out loud.
I concur with much of what you've said and it resonates with me, however in the keyword searches for stats there were a couple of inconsistencies. 1. People express what they think of for search terms the one that is the most relevant. Therefore email marketing roi becomes more relevant as demonstrated by the increase from “email roi @55,900” to email marketing roi to 199,000 (which is more concise). Interestingly enough when someone is setting up to rank for longtails they should go with the ones with the traffic in place. With this search there are very few possiblilities to compete with 8 or 10k so it's not viable as an SEO project. Which you may be thinking where's he coming from? From an internet search standpoint if there is no one looking for it then there isn't any apparent commercial viability.
Just to put out another thing to think on. “Social Media Marketing” has an astounding 3.1 million search results and it is in quotes. To the people trying to rank for this term it's a mistake from an SEO standpoint. I.E. Here are the google results Keyword Competition Global Monthly Searches Local Monthly Searches
Clear selections on other pages
social media marketing roi
390 – –
Basically millions going for 390 hits per month and they are wasting their time working to page one of Google. I'll get away from my speciality.
One last thought: Social media has touched upon substantially higher amounts of people in a relevant way. The other types of media marketing are almost proportionately represented by the groups of people who can afford to utilize them or have it as part of their vocation. Just saying. 🙂
Thanks for the great post and letting me give you my “two cents”. 🙂
Corporations are adopting and the ones have consultants which are generally early adopters instructing them and implementing things are recognizing huge roi's. On the