The importance of social networks becomes evident
I was kinda surprised at how little comment and conversation has been going on over the news that Facebook has overtaken Google News as the source of website referrals on the net. This is a pretty earthshaking development in the realm of corporate communications.
Companies, especially niche technology companies, have relied heavily on Google to disseminate news releases to the customer base on the net. This has been the primary reason for cutting advertising and PR budgets. After all, why spend money to get attention when it is virtually free on the 'net?
But as I, and so many others, have predicted, the decimation of the news media that provided third party verification of corporate messages, has forced the consuming public to rely on a new, even more uncontrollable third party verifier... their friends and colleagues.
The way it works is people see a news release or or other corporate marketing crap on Google and instead of clicking on the link to the company to get more information, they go to their favorite social network, in this case Facebook, and ask their group what they know/think about the company. Those friends refer them directly to the company, or worse yet, a rival that they think is better.
You think this is a recent phenomenon? Au contraire, mon amis ( which is about all the French I know). Check the search rates on Google for just about any significant technology company or niche since Facebook became open to more than just college students in about 2007. They have been steadily dropping -- not dramatically but steadily -- as the growth of social network platforms significantly increased.
So when you are considering the impact of mass micromedia (which I just found out was coined by Jeremiah Owyang that term, damn it) that's the big one. If you haven't figure it out yet, it is sucking the life out of your outdated marketing approach. You may need to get some help. fast.
"...But as I, and so many others, have predicted, the decimation of the news media that provided third party verification of corporate messages, has forced the consuming public to rely on a new, even more uncontrollable third party verifier... their friends and colleagues..."
ReplyDeleteYou make it sound like this is a bad thing. As someone who represents a company, my client Xuropa, I now have the ability to publish my own message whenever I want without being held hostage by old media "unbiased" reporters who demand I buy advertising to be mentioned in the article. Or to their deadlines or their too-far-removed-from-reality opinions. If I have a good offering, my "uncontrollable" customers are much better references anyway.
As someone who uses technology, I am 100x more informed as a buyer than I was before. This obviously holds for the more consumer side where I have access to any number of sources of reviews and evaluations. It also holds for the business side, where I can gather input from my online posse to help me.
Social networks have been around for ages and have always been more important that PR. In the past they were limited to word of mouth. The only difference now is that the word-of-mouth can spread around the world in milliseconds and reach many more people.
I don't think it's a bad thing at all, Harry. The industry you work in continues to believe, for the most part, that they can somehow control the message. They are still cranking out news releases so they can show up on Google searches, thinking that's all they need to do the communicate with their customer base. They are using social media tools as another form of news release distribution. And they still don't believe that fostering a conversation in the market is a smart thing to do. This past week I've turned away three companies that have no other form of marketing then going to trade shows and cranking out releases.
ReplyDeleteAnd I STILL have to explain to them what Xuropa is, even though they have heard it several times.
The traditional media was somewhat controllable because of the advertising issue, but social media journalism is uncontrollable, but not quite reliable. Bloggers can be bought and generally have to be in order to make a living, unless they are blogging about something that on tangentially relates to the company they work for or represent. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. There has to be a certain amount of chicanery before a true standard of ethics can take hold.
I do take exception about your accusation that the journalists demanded advertising for coverage. In 20 years of working tech PR I never encountered such a thing. I do hear it regularly from new media people. Yelp is the most egregious but it exists most in the social media world. That will change as civil extortion cases come to the forefront and enforce the ethics I mentioned.