A company that only uses social media to promote their products and advertise sales is like that friend we all have that only calls when they need a favor, no one likes them. These companies do not add value to the ongoing conversations consumers are engaging in on social media and they certainly are not doing themselves any favors by standing on the sidelines.
As Scott points out in Chapter 4 of this weeks reading, social media is an opportunity for anyone to create and publish content. This is what makes it so special. Organizations that take advantage of the opportunity to engage with their consumers in social media circles have the unique opportunity to see true and honest reactions to their products, services, and actions. To engage fully in social media, organizations need to embed themselves in those forums, Facebook threads, twitter feeds etc. that pertain to them specifically or to their industry. It is not simply enough to be present at the party, they need to participate in active and meaningful conversations where they are able to add value. As Scott states, "What you get in return for your valuable interactions are lasting friendships, many of which lead to business opportunities".
Interacting with consumers directly is arguably even more important when there is a concern that could possibly grow into a scandal. It is extremely important to react swiftly and honestly to any social media buzz that could possibly cast an organization in a bad light. Yet another reason why following social media is beneficial. So what do you get when you stay dark?
While there were many important points brought up by Scott in this reading, these resonated most with me. Did anyone else find that this topic is one that most companies don't address regularly enough? As social media grows and becomes farther reaching it will be interesting to see just how embedded companies become in their industry's social media outlets.
“Organizations that take advantage of the opportunity to engage with their consumers in social media circles have the unique opportunity to see true and honest reactions to their products, services, and actions.” I could not agree more. This provides feedback, whether it be negative or positive is a plus. It allows organizations to know what they are doing right and what they need to fix in order to achieve the success they are looking for. As Scott states, "What you get in return for your valuable interactions are lasting friendships, many of which lead to business opportunities". In the book by Tony Hsieh discovering happiness he says something similar. He says that basically when you meet people don’t try to get something out of them, build a relationship with them because down the road either your business or you personally end up benefiting.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think many organizations realize what goes into tracking and communicating on social media. After this class I can see that it is time consuming to go onto sites and keep up to date with everything. Organizations, I think, should have a dedicated social media person. I wonder if they do and this is why some companies fail at communication via social media.
Thank you for your feedback. I do believe that most organizations that take their social media initiative as seriously as they should do have a dedicated social media position. It is wise to dedicate this position solely to the monitoring and updating of social media because, as you state in your response, it is extremely time consuming and can easily fall by the wayside. If social media goes unmanaged it can send a poor message to followers and people will not only lose interest but they will think the organization does not care about them.
DeleteHi Laura,
ReplyDeleteThis is a great analysis of Scott's chapter 4 reading. As Scott mentions, social media is like a cocktail party. Do you avoid the social interaction of cocktail parties altogether (p. 39)? This is what happened with Sony. People approached them at this "cocktail party" and Sony awkwardly backed off without any interaction.
Scott says, "your best customers participate in online forums - so should you" (p. 47). What do you recommend that Sony should have done to tackle this social crisis that came about?
Scott explains that what's being said must be monitored but how would you have handled the communication had you been working at Sony?
-James
Had Sony taken the adequate time to analyze the situation instead of undermining the issue, they would not have had such an uproar. As Scott mentions, Sony should have addressed the issue immediately, by waiting to address it they came off as cool and uncaring. The people in the forums simply needed their concerns to be validated and then to be provided with a solution. I find it surprising for a technology company to be so disconnected from their consumer base online. To say that most people don't understand the issue and so they should not be concerned is insulting and was terrible PR on the part of Sony. I personally would have addressed the issue head on the moment there was question as to the quality and security of our programs. There should always be a contingency plan for unflattering press. By addressing the issue openly and honestly Sony would have been able to save face with their consumers, instead they seemed arrogant and provided a too little, too late solution.
DeleteHi Laura,
DeleteAgreed. A simple, "we apologize for this oversite and are working around the clock to fix the problem" would have sufficed!
Exactly, simple and to the point.
DeleteHi Laura,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your post because Scott's chapter 4 is one of my all time favorites. I am so amused by his analogy of life to the internet: social media is a cocktail party, Ebay is the garage sale, etc. (Scott, D.M., 2012).
I would agree that many smaller companies are not as involved in social media as they should be. However, I feel as though major companies are getting the hang of it fairly well.
I believe the issue is that technology changes so quickly and as a result it has been a significant struggle for companies to keep up with what is required of them with regards to social media. It is almost as if they are constantly paddling water trying to stay afloat. The requirements to stay current with digital technology are changing faster than they can keep up with.
I believe what might help these companies is the obvious: a dedicated social media monitor. However, training employees and outlining social media guidelines for them could potentially create a team that would much more efficiently handle the tasks of managing social media.
What I find very interesting about social media is the assumption people make that the news distributed through it is as valid as what the media might put out. Are there any other skeptics out there like me? I don't take the general publics' word on social media as necessarily true. I am more comfortable when I see it verified somewhere else by who I know is a "credible source". The same holds true in my mind for bloggers, and even Wikipedia. I am a person that needs to know there is an expert behind the words and I need to feel confident that credibility is there. I am sure I am not alone.
Traditional advertising offers a certain credibility that social media cannot always. Traditional ads have met the editor requirements, or met self-regulated or government regulated requirements. With social media, I am usually left pondering whether or not what I read is really what is going on.
References:
Scott, D.M. (2011). The New Rules of Marketing & PR. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
I can see where you are coming from when you say that you want to see that there is an expert or credible source behind information published via social media. I guess the problem is that some media outlets, credible as they seem, do not use credible sources from time to time and publish or televise information that may not necessarily be true based upon a seedy resource. Fact checking has become an after thought based upon the speed at which information is put out into the world. With the development of social media, the turn around time has become all but instant, traditional media has to move even quicker to break a story, even if that means not having all of their ducks in a row.
DeleteI tend not believe much at all if it comes from a media source that I don't deem as credible (like most people). Most of that stems from my personal views, not necessarily to do with the source of the media. I am happy to take in information that I see on Twitter, Facebook, or other forms of media if those tweets, posts, etc. are coming from a viable source that I respect.
In this way I suppose I agree with you. I really would only follow information from a source that has been verified to ensure that the information being passed along is both accurate and from a source that I trust.
Hi Kristin & Laura,
DeleteI think this is an interesting conversation about credibility in social media. As you said, Kristin - a dedicated social media rep is important if your company can afford one. My company employs a social media specialist and this allows for her to concentrate 100% on engaging our current potential customers.
What can a social media professional do to make sure that the brand is being credible through social media?
James,
DeleteA social media specialist needs to be sure that every single comment coming from the company is spoken in a manner that represents the company mission and the brand. The brand personality of the company has to be reflected in all social media presence, through the choice of words used, and through the choices of topics, pictures, events, and news posted. The company need to put a "face" on itself by posting in ways that allow the followers to feel that they are talking to a human, not a computer. All of these things are extremely important to building credibility. When a human is attached, the level of trust grows.
Agreed! What do you think when this company representative uses their name? We've found that when we reach out to customers, it is best to sign off using real names rather than being a mystery person behind the site.
DeleteHi James,
DeleteI think using an actual name is very effective. Doing so most definitely puts a human behind the words.
I agree with you Kristin, using the organization name instead of a persons name seems cold. The whole point of setting up a social media presence is to connect with consumers and without a human presence people might be reluctant to interact. It might seem counter intuitive for an organization to use a persons name as opposed to their name but it makes more sense for the medium.
DeleteHi Laura, great blog and utlization of supportive media. I particularly like your opening comment: "A company that only uses social media to promote their products and advertise sales is like that friend we all have that only calls when they need a favor, no one likes them. These companies do not add value to the ongoing conversations consumers are engaging in on social media". Don't we all have that friend, follow that company on Twitter, or like them on Facebook? They are all about themselves and fail to embrace the importance of developing mutually beneficial relationships. Companies that do this on social media sites obviously do not understand how the medium works.
ReplyDeleteMixing your own metaphor with Scott's argument is a great way to get your point across. I too focused on chapter 4 for my blog and found Scott's parables to be useful in fully understanding his position.
Furthermore, I agree with your point about not believing the media sources that do not seem credible regardless of the medium they use to get their news out. My views on this are solely based on my undergraduate studies and understanding how these entities work.
Thank you for the feedback! I think that we all do have friends like that. It is even more glaringly obvious on social media as well because your profile is always there, lurking, silently in the shadows. If not to be engaged, then why are they there?
DeleteHi Nia and Laura,
DeleteTo add to this discussion, Deirdre Breakenridge, in her book titled Social Media and Public Relations, discusses the "relationship stairway" which describes the levels of relationships developed through social media. Laura, the quote you wrote defines "the Taker."
The stairway describes:
The casual friend: the person who might say good afternoon, or other brief comments
The Taker with good info: a person who will share information with you and hope you share it but the relationship is not reciprocal.
The Giver: The friend who helps you out by sharing everything for you without expecting anything in return.
The Giver and Taker: the relationship between friends is equally balanced and both sides feel the benefit.
The brand champion/trusted confidante: The friend you know will go to bat for your business in times of crisis or whenever needed (Breakenridge, 2012).
If businesses are going to have a social media presence, they should be working toward gaining those brand champions, and as you can see from this stairway, that won't come without true, two way interaction.
References
Breakenridge, D. K. (2012). Social Media and Public Relations. Upper Saddle Ridge, New Jersey: FT Press.
James & Kristin,
ReplyDeleteI agree with both of your sentiments. As Scott mentioned in this chapter, having a name linked to a social media presence makes the organization seem more present and involved as well as more approachable and genuine in their efforts to connect with their publics.