Making the Case for Social Communications
Jackie Peters | Branding, General, Marketing, Metrics, Mobile Marketing, Social Media | Wednesday July 23 2008There is a lot of buzz these days about social media. Everyone’s trying to figure it out. There are some who understand it, and some who might be missing the mark. The “web” is quickly, and deservedly, becoming a science unto itself. The web is still perceived by the majrity as a platform. A medium. An “it”. When, as I observe it to be, the web is much more, it’s “where,” “when,” “how,” and “why.” And most importantly “who.” My friend Stowe Boyd refers to practitioners of social media as “the people formerly known as the audience” – a term I am quite fond of. In general, this is a concept that the world of marketing communications has yet to catch on to.
In my own business, I find it difficult to describe what we do in a word or two. When my partner and I started the company, we started it based on the idea of creating a two-way communication stream between a brand and it’s audience (the people formerly known as the audience.) That was 7 1/2 years ago. The social web has greatly impacted how we function as a company, and allows us to give new meaning to that original vision.
People in the industry have coined several terms to attempt to suggest the relationship between the social web and the world of marketing. Social Media Marketing is one, Conversational Marketing is another. As Brian Solis points out, these terms are flawed.
The problem with Social Media Marketing and Conversational Marketing as classifiers is that both still involve the word “marketing.” It doesn’t imply authenticity and the two-way process of listening, internalizing, and responding. Each is complementary to traditional marketing, but their intent, practice, and metrics are different. And, the socialization of communications is also unique.
-Brian Solis
This leaves the question: “What is the proper qualifier?” How do we define the act of participating in the social web on behalf of a brand? Up to this point, various factions within marcom have been attempting to include “social” within their particular discipline – PR, marketing, advertising, search, customer service, HR and product development have all attempted to adopt some or all aspects of the social web and fit them in somehow.
I would like to posit the idea that rather than trying to fit a round peg into a square hole, we need to carve out a new hole. The term I am proposing we use for this is Social Communications. Social Communications as a category touches branding, PR, marketing, WOM, customer service, product development, mobile marketing, SEO and many other aspects of a brand’s communications strategy. It is the art of “socializing” these processes.
On it’s own, communications does not necessarily imply a two-way, or a multi-dimensional stream. Communication can be, and historically largely has been, broadcast – it’s a one-way stream of information. Social media represents a disruption to the world of traditional marketing communications. I’ve talked before about the fact that the social web represents the first time in the history of communication that no one is in control, it’s not top-down. The social web requires that communication be two-way at a minimum, but optimally this communication will be multi-dimensional, echoing out in many directions at once, being absorbed, processed, influenced, shared and interacted with.
Social Communications represents the act of socializing communications. Whatever we call it in the end, I believe this category deserves it’s own classification and it’s own field of study. I don’t claim to have all of the answers, my goal in writing this post is to begin a dialogue that can be used as the foundation of future discussions on the topic.
To focus on “social communication” seems like a fool’s errand, with all due respect.
Social communication, viral marketing, word of mouth marketing, social media marketing, blah, blah, are just terms created by the advertising, marketing, and to some extent VC and corporate world to justify using the Internet.
Social communication has been occurring since men, and women, evolved slightly from apes.
What’s transformative is the ability to promote a digital “obviously social” commons across the globe, which is fragile and easily undermined, co-opted and exploited by brand managers, such as myself.
[...] heavyBlog » Making the Case for Social Communications I would like to posit the idea that rather than trying to fit a round peg into a square hole, we need to carve out a new hole. The term I am proposing we use for this is Social Communications. Social Communications as a category touches branding, PR, marketing, WOM, customer service, product development, mobile marketing, SEO and many other aspects of a brand’s communications strategy. It is the art of “socializing” these processes. [...]
I agree with the trend here that communication is social. The very definition includes “interchange”. I feel that it is redundant.
In my mind, social media = the mediums created to foster social behavior, word of mouth and viral are some of those mediums, social networking = the ability to connect with people around specific topics or interests.
Not sure why we need a further term to define the act of being social or the act of communication. Is there confusion about these terms?
[...] Peters over at heavyBlog makes the case here for changing the ”job description” of marketers who use social media as a tool to [...]
Outside of the naming (or not) nomenclature discussion…
Expanding on Joe P.’s point “communication… requires a sender and a receiver,” communication is a human activity–which may or may not be aided by social media (digital or print). Communication, in any form, must be designed to engage participants into the social discussion.
Digital/print mashups already exist, and my opinion is that the number of them will explode over the next six to nine months. I futher believe that the viable Web 3.0 developers will align context to human communicative patterns.
I have no problem with a naming structure, as long as it is flexible enough to be as evolutionary as will be the industry.