Hi Bob,
I found my way here via Mitch Joel’s Tweet.
I
’ll probably be what you’d classify a ‘social media advocate’, but I’m not ignoring the data; nor am I going to feel unsettled.
The study doesn
’t quite point out that content is what ultimately makes an impression – not the medium. A good online ad will beat a poor ad on ‘traditional’ media any day. And it works the other way as well.
The study also misunderstands the very nature of Digital or Social Media; and how it defers from ‘Traditional’.
Fact is – effective content will stimulate more (of the right) conversations regardless the medium. And conversations take place IN ‘Social Media’, not ‘traditional’ media.
Main thing – we all need to Think Integrated. The social media maniacs and ‘traditional’ media die-hards will have to realise that it’s not one or the other, but wise use of both – social/digital and traditional – is what makes us effective communicators.
Bob, I look at it differently.
The story says "ads that make an impression", not "all ads" or "ads in general."
Even if we stipulate that the "ads that make an impression" are indeed more likely to generate word of mouth if delivered via "traditional" means, it doesn't mention the cost difference between "traditional" and "digital".
Meaning, I might get more word of mouth via traditional means (IF) I am able to get that "ad that makes an impression" every time. But what if that ad sucks? I've spent a lot of money and got a lousy return.
Social media allows a company to put more ads out at a far lower cost than traditional, which makes the odds of getting the "ad that makes an impression" much better.
Meaning, a company can get more bang from the buck by going digital than by going traditional.
Of course, the double-edged sword is that a company can really screw up and look cheesy (Ritz-Carlton, anyone?) if they're not careful.
Lots of things can stimulate (your word from the first graph) conversations: events, books, TV commercials (traditional media) and websites (digital media) to name a few. Only one of those things can also facilitate a conversation. After all, you didn't make a :30 spot or print ad to have this rant and hope for response. You wrote it on your blog.
So let's say you put out a good spot. Even the TiVo users are captivated by it and not zooming through it at 3x speed. It's driving sales among those who did see it, and it has the potential to make waves among others... it could even aid in sparking a brand movement. Are you going to hope each viewer has a conversation about it with three others around the water cooler? Or are you going to give advocates a way to spread the word via a social network, exponentially fueling your movement?
"Word of Mouth" is no longer a literal statement. And the integrated marketer knows that traditional and digital media can play nicely together to both stimulate it and facilitate it.
John Lane makes an excellent point. The comment you made in your blog is the reason we are all here defending Social Media. Enough said.
C'mon, Bob. Rather than take such glee in kicking at social media, you might have paid more attention to the headline of the New York Times article that started this: "Traditional Media Not Dead Yet."
Of course the researchers found these results: compare the best of social media campaigns with the best of "traditional" media, with their million-dollar budgets, and you'd darn well better be able to identify greater impact in old media.
But as the story itself makes clear, few advertisers yet know how to use social media. As they experiment, fail, and try again, they will get better - and the results you are waiting for will come tumbling forth.
Don't stand your ground wishing social media away. That's too much like the old newsman grumbling about computers displacing typewriters in the newsroom - unaware of what a powerful tool is being ofered to you. Learn to use each medium for what it's best at, if you truly want to serve your clients.
(BTW, I also liked the spin in the Times' story about how social media may be okay, but it reaches people when they are actively looking for information. Unlike TV ads, which reach people when they are passive and happy and sitting on their couch watching whatever is put in front of them. Yeah, right. Pass the remote.)
Rick Spence
Canadian Entrepreneur
http://canentrepreneur.com
Who cares? It's not a competition and nothing we say, read or advocate will determine who "wins" this imagined game.
Can we have any of the actual data from the study? If not, everything you just said is pointless.
Thanks for the heads-up, Mitch. I am with you, Jeff... The headline looks provocative but means nothing without the data. What is the unit of analysis? Are we comparing one consumer who is "hit" with a "high quality" traditional advertising message, against a hypothetically identical consumer who is hit with a similarly high quality branded digital media message? Hmm. I doubt it. Let's look at this critically. Was it a field study of actual behavior or a survey of comsumers' predicted behavior?...
Rick: I think the NYTimes headline was meant to be sardonic.
Rick and Lynn: I am not "wishing social media away", nor do I see this as a "competition" between media. I am just trying to introduce some factual basis into what has become matter of faith.
Jeff and Andrea: To find out more about the methodology, go to http://www.yankelovich.com/index...=106&
Itemid=318 and download the pdf. Apparently, the raw data is proprietary and you need to pay for it (this is how these guys make a living.)
However, there is some data in the NYTimes article56 percent of survey respondents said traditional media ads made a positive impression, in contrast to 31 percent who said that about digital media ads. Thirteen percent reported a negative impression of traditional media ads versus 21 percent for digital media ads.
They did not offer any data on the word-of-mouth issue, but asserted ads that made an impression in traditional media were more likely to stimulate word of mouth than ads that made an impression in digital media.
Apparently this was a nationwide survey, conducted among 1,500 adults 16+, and was based on actual, not predicted, behavior.
Hmm. Another SURVEY where consumers claim they are savvy and reject traditional marketing. I guess we can believe them if we agree humans are capable of and willing to truthfully predict their future behavior. (Consider heuristics and biases such as the social desireability bias).
I see that this survey "was based on actual, not predicted behavior." Therefore it must rely on RECALL, which is also susceptible to all sorts of biases.
Sure - there's "competition between media" - there SHOULD BE, shouldnt there? Marketers should endeavor to place their messages in the ideal venue. So research that compares the relative effectiveness of various media is a good thing. But I dont think we can put our stake in the ground and say "traditional media stimulates more WOM than digital media." Definitely not based on a survey. YIKES. (That said, the headline DID get us all talking, yes?)
I think the article pointed out a couple of key observations that are worth nothing.
1. We don't have digital advertising figured out yet...
“we don’t quite know how to develop advertising for digital media,” he [Smith] added. “There’s a lot of experimentation, and we’re probably not as good as we think.”
Agreed.
2. TV commercials are a better source of word-of-mouth buzz than social media..."That finding was somewhat counterintuitive, Mr. Smith said, because of the reputation of the new media as the best way to generate so-called buzz, or positive opinions spread by word of mouth."
Yeah, but what's the cost of entry for TV or Newspaper vs. YouTube or a blog? People say 'new media' is better because it's easily accessible and cheaper to create buzz. Dollar for dollar how do they compare?
Very (very!) little corporate involvement in social media is being done well, or even competently.
I'd challenge anyone who has commented here to post a link to a cool use of social media that they've made for a corporate/brand client.
Generally companies and their brands are an online annoyance that we've become very skilled at ignoring and pushing out of the way. We're banner blind, we can close a pop up almost before it's opened and we can navigate away from a corporate web page (whether it's a site or a Facebook profile) in a flash.
Social Media advocates all think that their spruiker at the carnival is going to be louder, more entertaining or more enticing than everyone else's and they keep piling them on. It's incredibly rare to come across one that's actually adding any value, so if it's not doing that then what is it doing other than intruding?
There are some nice examples of brand promotion on the web, but for every one of those I'd guess that there are 100 incompetent rushes to stake a claim to some web 2.0 real-estate.
As a company you could just put that down to an inexpensive mistake because hey, it didn't cost you much. As a user I see it as yet another bit of floating, intrusive spam I've got to navigate around.
No one wants to talk about your soap powder or soft drink. We have better things to talk about. It might be great soap powder and we might buy it, but we have no interest at all in joining its branded social network or becoming its friendster.
And when enough of you gather, trying to get our WOM, you'll have polluted our social environment and we'll have to move somewhere else. Way to contribute to the conversation guys!
=p Marc
AW:
I completely agree that one study is not definitive on this subject. However, for how many years have the online "conversation" zealots been making outrageous claims without any data?
JR:
I also agree with you that buzz-per-dollar metrics would be a more interesting way to compare. The problem is, there are so many variables. Not least of which is the quality of the work, whether offline or online.
@Marc I think you hit it head on.
I agree with Jeff. Nice job, Marc.
Hi Marc
Have you been to
Southwest Airlines
http://www.blogsouthwest.com/
37Signals, makers of popular project management software Basecamp and Campfire
http://www.37signals.com/svn/
Or GM's Fast Lane:
http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/
There are viable corporate communities sponsored by the product companies. I agree it's rare, and if it isn't adding value it's useless. We may all be looking at the Model T version of social media, but advertising and marketing will have to change to accommodate a more social viewpoint.
Funny post. I love blog posts that decry social media and its tools, its audiences and their conversations. Using a blog to call other bloggers 'social media maniacs'....priceless.
"Biting the hand(s) that feed you" becomes "blogging against the blogs that feed you".
The irony of your well-written post is its intent: to start a conversation. You've written the post with terms to goad comments and conversations. You've used the most popular social media tool to dismiss the 'maniacs' who follow your use of this tool. Truly...priceless.
And to show how nimble you are, you're a 'cranky CEO of an ad agency'..oh, wait, a really big ad agency.
So, you've got it going on on both sides of this 'conversation'. You blog and that's the side that's so ineffective now as its ineffectiveness as been written, decreed, in the NY Times. ( That the NY Times benefits from these same 'effective' ad revenues seems to have been lost as does the ad was sponsored by an agency in conjunction with an academic program designed to deliver workers for the ad industry seems to be overlooked in 'the conversation'.) And you run an ad agency who'll benefit from the rediscovered effectiveness, at least from an industry sponsored research, of the resource your agency provides.
You're a hedge fund in the marketing world. You've hedged your bets to win on both angles: social media is dead. Great. You can use social media tools to announce it and your ad agency makes money from renewed interest in your products. Social media is alive...great you're an ad agency that gets it...'see my blog!'.
I love it. Thanks for the great copy and starting this conversation.
Oh and never mind that your references to the results of the study are...selective. Those references to 'ads they like' (that has to assume we watch the ads...) or that 'ads don't provide solutions' as does social media resources, but instead provide mere distractions are overlooked. And the research that shows how cost-effective social media tools are for driving not only clicks but conversions...are merely dismissed.
Still I like your post. It's bold, opinionated, personal, self-serving, well-linked and it's effective. You've stirred quite a conversation about yourself. That makes it worth reading regularly.
Thanks, Zane. I think.
I wish I were as clever as you make me out to be. A hedge fund in the marketing world is a hell of a good idea. How do we start one?
At the end of the day, does it really matter whether traditional or new media win or lose ? What really matters is the CONSUMER / your CUSTOMER that matters !! How can you help them WIN and not about traditional vs new media.
Commenting by HaloScan
