Move over Barack Obama, the #1 at rallying a crowd better than any politician in the past year is SARAH PALIN.

One nation under God.

Palin Power
Come on Ob

Very interesting piece – thank you. However, there are a couple of points that I would like to mention here.

Social media is not at fault – the campaigns and unrealistic company expectations are. Social media is merely a means to transmission – much like the paper involved with traditional DM is. If companies are not getting the response rates they expect, either the campaign is wrong (either in execution or in targeting) or they haven’t understood the limitations (and freedoms) that social media brings.

It depends very much on what ROI position you’re (not you, specifically, rather ‘one’) taking. Do you want to monetise into direct sales transactions or do you want to build loyalty with real people for increased sales in the longer term?

Also, social media isn’t the attractor to your campaign – the campaign message and marketing is. Social media is merely a channel to allow the consumer to interact.

Furthermore, social media is brilliant in times of crisis when used well. Facebook, Twitter et al can get your ‘We’re sorry, we know there’s a problem and we’re doing our best to fix it’ message out in a matter of moments to affected customers and help build their confidence that you actually care about the contract you have with them and that you are big enough to admit there’s an issue.

To go back to the e. vs ‘real’ direct mail issue, once again I suspect that either the expectation is over-high or the campaigns aren’t properly executed. Using a good mass mailer, you should be able to see who has opened what, what links they clicked through and where they went from there. This is an amazingly useful insight into the customers’ habits and allows you to personalise the next communication to the next level, which should increase your activation and do wonders for the ROI.

There are, in my mind, very few real differences between e- and paper DM. If either is badly designed, badly executed, it’ll hit the bin. If either arrives at the wrong time, it’ll hit the bin. And if either doesn’t talk to me in the way I like to be spoken to about products/services I’m likely to be interested in, it’ll hit the bin.

That’s the crux of the matter, to my mind. I think that when e-marketing and social media came along, so many people simply thought that the technology would do all of the work for them. But a car doesn’t drive itself, does it?!

And there’s no doubt that face-to-face is one of the best money-makers you can have. People buy from people and people buy because of trust. Pieces of paper or pretty streams of binary in your inbox will never have the same effect…

Just a few thoughts for a Sunday afternoon to add to the debate!

Best
Neil

It’s always great to read what others think is going on. Most of your observations are spot-on. No matter how easy, fast and spontaneous communication gets (and, parenthetically, the new iPad is absolutely amazing), nothing will replace face-time with like-minded people (irrespective of profession) from wanting to do business–exclusively–with each other.

LOCAL people enjoy doing business with other local people…who they know and trust. TRUST is the linchpin of networking…and effective marketing. Steve Covey (the son) has written volumes about this and most senior marketing folks will tell you that all the tweeting/etc. in the world doesn’t mean much without the predisposition of TRUST. Seth Godin is also right on this topic.

It’s my observation that most [members of] associations seldom reach out as well as they might to “outsiders.” There’s a mentality of “we’re special” and “better” than others not in our own profession. To illustrate this point: almost every Code of Conduct or Rules & Regulations prohibit making referrals (compensated or not) to unlicensed people, i.e. those that somehow are not good enough and, by extension, “unwashed” since they could never reach the prescribed level of competence. Yeah, right! Happily, attitudes & rules are changing–ever so slowly–thanks to the internet brings transparency to the fore…

Sorry, there isn’t enough room to pontificate here–but going back to Brian’s original idea: Old School marketing is far from dead or being replaced >>> it’s still more effective than all the new Social Media combined is true…especially if one is smart enough to use it correctly…in the local marketplace where it’s always more (cost-)effective.

Bob Veris, PM Community

Thanks for your kind words and your observations. I suspect we are not as far apart on this topic as the text may lead readers to conclude. I’ve enjoyed the dialog and look forward to reading more of your work. Thanks Brian.

Your blog post on the different ways of measuring success (http://www.n2growth.com/blog/measuring-success/) is a great piece and I highly recommend it as reading to all of my blog readers. Qualitative performance measurements are certainly on the rise, and are critical in the Web 2.0 era, but at a certain time we still need the conversion of engagement, circles of influence and team deployment to turn into sales and revenue. I’m just seeing a lot of people who have given social media and Web 2.0 a year-plus who have not seen the financial return, who at the same time are getting tangible, measurable results from TV, radio, direct mail, personal marketing, etc. Granted, the dollars expended are probably not the same. Then again, neither is the time. Also, they might be pulling the plug early, but most businesses ultimately need to bring dollars in the door.

I will plan a posting soon that directs readers to your Measuring Success piece, as I know not everyone reads comments. You’ve got a great blog!

And thanks again for your keen insight.

Thanks for your response. I understand your sentiments and appreciate that we are on the same page in some regards. However, I would also suggest that measurement is only as good as the quality of the metrics being examined. When you say that most of your revenue and your clients revenue is being driven by through traditional mediums, I would suggest that on a top line basis they are likely seeing a more significant impact because they are spending a significantly greater amount of money in those mediums. I would also suspect that on an actual ROI basis the picture isn’t as pretty as they want to believe. Since you’re into measurement you might enjoy the following post as it sheds some light on the topic at hand: http://www.n2growth.com/blog/measuring-success/

Thanks for the comment…and great points. I agree 100%…well, maybe a little disagreement on the social media being infinitely more effective than snail mail, but the point is well taken.

What I’m hearing is a lot of chatter from small to mid sized businesses who have been sold snake oil. Tweet, blog, and find fans, and you’ll make a lot of money. Social networking has both measurable and non-measurable results, both of which can benefit a company. They also can add to the bottom line or not. I’ve been doing research for the past 90 days on this topic, and here’s what I find. The majority of people using social media get something out of it. The vast majority of people using social media do not get much financially tangible out of it. The majority of people investing time and money in both traditional and new media marketing see significantly better returns on traditional marketing.

I have social media clients, so don’t think I’m an opponent of social media. I’ve gotten business from it. But I’m a marketing guy at heart, and that means I test, I monitor and I measure. And right now, the dollars in many businesses (and mine) are coming mostly from old school marketing.

Thanks Mike!

I read a lot about social media not working for folks, and what I usually find some common themes that run through their communications. Those who tend to struggle the most are the individuals and companies who push their product or service without even attempting to build trust, engender confidence, demonstrate credibility, or build real relationships.

It is difficult to monetize “contacts” (at least in any meaningful fashion)regardless of the medium used to facilitate communications. However it is not difficult at all to generate revenue from relationships where credibility has been established, trust has been built and needs are being met.

Something else to consider…not everyone uses social media with the intent of generating revenue. I use social media to learn, to share & communicate, to help others, to extend our brand, and a variety of other things. That said, we have generated substantial revenue both for our firm and for our clients using social media. My experience is that the brands that are not satisfied with ROI on social media are brands new to the space that are still learning, or are the brands that tend to struggle in other mediums as well.

In terms of direct comparisons, Social Media is infinitely more effective than direct mail could ever possibly be if you understand the medium. With regard to face-to-face, Social Media doesn’t replace face-to-face, but if used properly serves as a catalyst for face-to-face.

Bottom line in my book…it’s not being afraid of the discussion that is the key point, rather it’s having the right discussion.

Best wishes Brian…