CHAPTER 7

Conclusion

7.1 Ticking the Marketing Boxes

When it comes to social media marketing, too many organizations do little more than tick the boxes in the check list they found in some book or guru’s website. The problem with check-box lists is that once the box has a tick in it, senior management pats itself on the back and proclaims to anyone who will listen that they have managed all of these boxes being checked—but they don’t really care if each job has been done effectively. To do so might be to uncover the fact that they have actually managed nothing. It is this kind of strategic management that gives rise to the parable of the Emperor’s New Clothes moving into the digital age. CEOs who do not ask questions can be easily fooled by the bright lights and press coverage of that social media phenomenon everyone is talking about as the panacea to all marketing ills.

So why have so many people bought into the Emperor’s New Digital Clothes? Why have so many owners, CEOs, CMOs, and managers acted so irrationally in agreeing to spend money without a second thought for any return on investment? At risk of overdoing the metaphors in a book whose title is a folk-tale—there are none so blind as those that will not see. Furthermore, they do not know what they are supposed to be seeing. Therefore, it is no surprise when they perceive how well it works when shown it by its evangelists—because they do not actually know what social media marketing is. And therein lays the crux of the problem raised in the tale of the Emperor’s New Digital Clothes.

Despite me offering up in this book a description of what social media marketing consists of, what it actually is eludes us. Social media is about sharing and engaging in communities and networks. Ergo, social media marketing must also embrace these characteristics. But so much of what we are told is successful social media marketing barely gives an acknowledging nod toward sharing or engaging. And here is the twist in this apocryphal tale. It would seem that most organizations now use social media platforms as broadcast media for content to be pushed out to the general public—the polar reverse of the ethos of social media.

This broadcast content is generally along the lines of information or news—with no attempt at any kind of engagement. So popular is this social broadcasting that younger audiences are more likely to view sports highlights on Snapchat or YouTube than they watch the full match or event on TV. Significantly, February 2017 saw an indicator of the way the future is shaping up when YouTube announced its $35-a-month YouTube TV with programing from some premium broadcasters including ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, and ESPN, as well as well as live showings of NBA and MLB games. This was on top of a deal with broadcaster Univision to livestream matches from Mexico’s top soccer division Liga MX. The same month saw—according to Twitter’s CFO Antony Noto¹—around 5.1 million people watching the Grammy’s video content on Twitter during the awards show, with Noto going on to suggest that the company intended to double its livestreaming efforts in 2017. Around the same time the Google-owned video channel announced plans to run original programing on its YouTube kids app. Similarly, Facebook’s plans to move away from traditional (it’s only 10 years old, but so fast has it moved that it can be described as traditional) social media were betrayed by its poaching one of YouTube’s key music directors Tamara Hrivnak in January 2017—surely a declaration of intent for the social media giant.²

None of this content has any intent to share or engage—so it can’t be considered part of social media marketing: can it? But if it is not part of social media, what it is part of? Social public relations? Social news? Social information? Social dissemination? Social notices? Social broadcasting? I like the latter as it best describes what is taking place—Collins English Dictionary’s definition of broadcast being to make widely known throughout an area. This content belongs to, and is from, the organization releasing it. The platforms that we refer to as social media are being used to broadcast—push—that content onto the mobile devices of interested parties rather than those parties having to visit the organization or its website. I have no problem with this. It sounds eminently sensible. But it is not social media marketing in the sense of engagement. A school announcing a snow day on Instagram is not marketing. A police department announcing on Twitter that a road is closed after an accident is not marketing. A teacher giving formative feedback to homework questions on Facebook is not marketing.

Messages like this are dubbed social media marketing simply because an organization has published the information on a social media platform. Indeed, any content put on any social media platform by any organization, business, brand, establishment, entity, association, institute, society, corporation, company, alliance, union, enterprise (you get my drift) is considered to be social media marketing. It isn’t. Yes, all of these bodies could use social media for marketing purposes—but giving out information on social media platforms is not social media marketing, it is communication.

But “hold on Alan” I hear some of you saying: “isn’t a police department communicating that a road is closed after an accident part of the service they provide?” Well, yes—you would be right. I have already made it clear the service can be an objective for social media marketing. So if dissemination of information is marketing, and as it’s on social media platforms, it must be social media marketing. Mustn’t it?

If we are to accept this as being the case, it removes a lot of the issues I have raised in this book, but invokes others. If your objective is to engage with customers you need the right culture, the right kind of C-level support, the right management and staff, and the right implementation. But if the message is information and its delivery is didactic, none of these is essential—or in some cases not even required. This brings us back to the 90-9-1 rule discussed in Chapter 2 (Section 2.1). Whilst much (all?) of the literature on social media marketing concentrates on engagement, what about that 90 percent who lurk but don’t engage or contribute?

Could it be that they are simply reading the messages that are broadcast on those media we refer to as being social? Another spanner in the engagement works is research from Cebrian et al. (2017) which found that responses to social media events or stories were temporary and with regard to business, that “a new product, company, or service … grabs people’s attention for a single announcement and then flames out.” This endorses social media being used for single, promotional, messages rather than the discussions or relationships that indicate engagement.

On the subject of engagement, I have long since put forward the notion that digital—and so by association, social—is actually causing customers (existing and potential) to disengage from organizations, brands, and products. Take, for example, comments made by Conrad Fritzsch, head of digital marketing at Mercedes-Benz, during a conference in Portugal in January 2017. He said that prior to the Internet, the average customer visited a dealer around nine times before buying a car. That is now down to an average of less than one and a half visits per purchase. I accept the fact that this may be lowering costs, but it is preventing any kind of real-life—that is; not virtual—relationship forming between seller and buyer. And if you are reading this book I am assuming you are business savvy enough to realize that the big money in being a car dealership is in after sales service, not the car’s sale itself. Furthermore, this virtual relationship only exists if the buyer has used Internet platforms owned or controlled by Mercedes or the dealership. If this is not the case, then any relationship formed during the online Mercedes car-buying process is not made with the German auto maker but the organization, platform, or media that provided the information potential buyers sought in helping them down the sales funnel. Therefore, when the car needs servicing the owner is likely to refer to the source of information they found most useful. In other words, instead of instinctively contacting the seller with whom a relationship has been formed—in the old days, the dealership—they tweet or post “where’s the best place to get my Merc serviced?”

An addendum to this section would be to enlarge on why I have this opinion on disengagement. The answer has its origins in comments I made in Chapter 5 (Section 5.1) where I make the point that digital marketing is marketing. Add into that my experience in sales and you have someone who has experience—and has seen the benefits of—developing genuine relationships with customers. By genuine, I mean face-to-face, how are the kids, let’s chat a while over a coffee, get to know you engagement. Those customers come back for the car’s service because of that relationship. Not because they got an e-mail or tweet. And guess what? When it’s time to replace that car with another, they don’t ask their friends on Facebook; they call at the dealership, have a chat over a cup of coffee and write a check for $70,000. I’ll also remind you that in the same section of Chapter 5 (Section 5.1) I rail against digital gurus who know nothing about marketing. Well add to that: and have no idea whatsoever how to sell anything to anyone. The irony is that despite their dubious reputation in some quarters, the best car sales folk are some of the best sales folk; period. Therefore, they are ideally placed to recognize when their bosses have bought into the Emperor’s New Digital Clothes.

It has long been my opinion that the vast majority of people who friend, like (or whatever) an organization, brand, or product on a social platform are either (a) already a customer, or (b) are never realistically going to be one. More recently however—prompted by the result of the UK’s Brexit vote and the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States—interest has developed around the existence of so-called online echo chambers. For example, Alex Krasodomski-Jones (2017), a researcher at the Centre for the Analysis of Social Media, found that politically engaged Twitter users are more likely to interact with others who support the same party and share articles from publications that match their beliefs. Note that an earlier version of these chambers is information bubbles, where we stay within our own online bubble when assimilating information. This is a rather obvious extension of our offline behavior where we tend to spend most time with like-minded groups of people. Such research is, of course, societal but my view on the issue stems from my knowledge and understanding of good old-fashioned marketing. More specifically, the model of segmentation. That is: the notion that a product will be purchased by like-minded folk thus making them a target group for marketing efforts. The trick is to identify and reach those target consumers. Traditionally, this is made easier if consumers identified themselves as users of the product by buying them. Then along came the Internet and you showed your allegiance by liking those organizations, brands, or products on a social platform. So, does being in the social media club increase your loyalty to the brand or product? Well, maybe—but if the product is right for you, and it sells at a price that is agreeable to you, and it is available in a place convenient to you, aren’t you likely to repurchase without having clicked on a like button?

Note that it is this notion that only existing customers like organizations, brands, or products that is behind much of the research presented as proving that engagement increases sales. Such research—and I’ve seen quite a lot—states that customers who have liked or follow a commercial entity will spend more money with that organization, brand, or product than someone who has not liked or followed them. Hold that thought whilst considering the following scenario.

The perceived wisdom of the followers-buy-more argument is that customer A will spend more than customers B or C. As this is not a strictly academic text, I’ll use the not-academic comment of: well duh? I’ll go even further by asking this question. Will customer A spend more money with the said organization, brand, or product because they have liked or followed them? Or will they spend more money with them because they provide the right product in the right place at the right price?

Meeting the needs and expectations of customers does not require social media. Not every organization, brand, or product has to have a dialog with customers to bring value to customers. That being social is not part of the corporate culture is not a precursor to lost customers and sales. Just ask Apple, they seem to be doing quite well despite having a Facebook presence that has no postings.

I have frequently heard or read comments something like: “marketers are well aware of the potential of social media to reach customers.” The key word in this endorsement of social media marketing is customers. As in existing—not potential. People who join an organization, brand, or product on Facebook, Twitter, or any other platform do so because they have already been satisfied with a purchase—or maybe because they got the right product in the right place for the right price? Try reversing this notion. Would anyone like or follow a seller if they didn’t provide them with the right product in the right place for the right price? Donald Trump’s use of social media has been a reoccurring theme throughout this book, well consider this. His Tweets are designed to hit the mark with his supporters (i.e., target market), which they do extremely well. That others disagree with them is the essence of segmentation. Those who follow @therealdonaldtrump voted for him—they are satisfied with the product he offers.³

Furthermore, as the research presented in Chapter 2 (Section 2.4) suggests, a significant number of consumers join social media sites solely to find out about discounts and gain access to coupons. That’s not social media marketing (i.e., engaging with customers) it’s using social media platforms to distribute promotions. In these instances customers do not wish to engage with the organization, brand, or product—they just want to save money. Which is fine. But please, let’s not have those organization’s flaunt that they are actively engaging with their customer base on social media because they have a zillion likes. For those organizations, the likes are the same as an e-mail list—but with a lower delivery and click-through rate. I wonder if any organization has done some kind of cost–benefit analysis of coupons physically delivered to people’s homes against those placed on social media. Sure, the social media might be cheaper (might—it is not free), but if no one responds it is a waste of time. Plus, despite the technology, coupons in letter boxes can be targeted at local stores far more efficiently.

Furthermore, if we consider social media for carrying a marketing message, the findings of the Adobe Email Survey 2016, conducted by Adobe Digital Insights (ADI), make grim reading for sellers of the Emperor’s New Digital Clothes. Respondents—which included an appropriate proportion of Millennials—were asked: “when it comes to receiving offers from marketers, how do you prefer to be contacted by brands.” The answers are shown in Figure 7.1.

Figure 7.1 Preferred method of hearing from brands

Given that nearly three times as many people would rather receive a marketing message via good old-fashioned post than social media, perhaps I should have put this on page one and then skipped to the last chapter? I should also add that e-mail marketing has an established model for determining return on investment.

As detailed at the end of Chapter 2, there are also a significant number of followers of individuals (e.g., actors, musicians) or entities (e.g., movies, stage shows) that people like as a show of affinity to the brand that is that person or entity. Furthermore, as addressed in that chapter, those likes are frequently made to impress online friends and nothing more. Again, social media can be used to push messages out to fans, but there is little or no aspect of engagement.

Then there are the followers I rank as never realistically going to be a customer. There can be a number of reasons for this, but I would suggest it is because they fall into one of two groups:

Table 7.1 The social media marketing mix (adopted from Zhu and Chen 2015)

In this marketing version of Zhu and Chen’s social media mix the platform examples for each quadrant are removed. This is because the same platforms might be equally suitable for multiple aims—although the content and its tone would need to be significantly different, Twitter, for example, could be used for:

Relationship is deliberately placed at the end of this list. This is because relationship is perceived as being the essence of what social media marketing is. But we have moved on. It is no longer compulsory for the various platforms we label as being social media to be social. They are media. Furthermore, they are media platforms on which marketing messages can be delivered. Which leads us to a social media eureka moment:

Once we accept this, it changes the answer to this book’s titular question. Indeed, this means the social media marketing mix could be revised to incorporate this aspect (see Table 7.2).

You will recall how in so many of the failed social media marketing examples in the previous chapter the practitioners have treated collaboration, self-media, and creative outlet as relationship tools rather than marketing tools. If these three options have been—mistakenly—used to be social (i.e., building relationships) with customers then the Emperor’s New Digital Clothes analogy is proved in that managers have blindly adopted a me-too strategy.

Furthermore, you will recall that in Chapter 4 (Section 4.3) return on investment was considered. The results weren’t very favorable—but one of the key issues was that marketers are struggling to measure the return on any investment in social media marketing. That would be, of course, measurement of social engagement. Naturally, that remains a problem for any true social media marketing—but for marketing on social media, three of the four quadrants can use metrics that are more traditional in nature. A “10% off this product for the next 7 days” tweet can be measured in the similar fashion as the same message placed in a newspaper or radio ad, for example. Could it be, however, that some social media marketing evangelists wouldn’t be too keen on this? Could it be that the results would see those budgets move back to traditional marketing—with none going to improve the Emperor’s new wardrobe? Perish the thought.

Table 7.2 Marketing on social media

Of course, relationship does work for some organizations, brands, and products and that is where the whole issue of culture is so relevant. If you do have the right culture you can (or might) be successful in using collaboration, self-media, and creative outlet as part of developing a relationship with consumers. You might even be able to use the same content and tone of voice in all four elements of the matrix. But—and it is a big but—that only works for those organizations, brands, and products that are social by nature and/or are right for social media marketing. And I think that is less than 5 percent of all organizations, brands, or products in the world. For the other 95 percent: welcome to the Emperor’s New Digital Clothes.

That 95 percent should not despair, however. To ignore social media as media for getting across a marketing message to a targeted audience—marketing on social media—would be to throw out the baby with the bathwater. That said, I am still convinced that for some organizations, some brands, and some products the use of any social media for any kind of marketing message is not a viable option. And I think that could represent a significant percentage of all organizations, brands, and products. I say this because there are just so many businesses, not-for-profit and public sector organizations out there. If you are now shouting at the book in disgust—and there should be some, otherwise there never were any Emperor’s New Digital Clothes—I refer you to Chapter 6 (Section 6.1) where I listed products I purchased over a week or so for which social media marketing (that is: marketing on social media) was not only unsuitable, but not required. I’ll go further and say that many businesses do not need to do any promotional activity. If they provide the right product in the right place and the right price they can sustain a healthy profit based purely on repeat purchase and word-of-mouth referrals. Doubt that? Try; my electrician, my financial adviser, my plumber, my local gas station, my local greengrocer, my local post office, my window cleaner, and just about every local retailer in my town’s shopping center—along with all of those everything’s a pound outlets (that’s a dollar in your town). If they don’t need to conduct any promotional activities they most certainly don’t need to do any social media marketing.

To use any social media platform for any form of marketing when it is—for any reason—unsuitable simply because others are doing so is not good practice. To use any social media platform for any form of marketing because someone tells you it is a good idea means you have been taken in by the Emperor’s New Digital Clothes.

Which brings us around to a principal of effective marketing. There is never a single right solution that suits every organization, every brand, or every product in every scenario in every location all of the time. Ultimately, therefore, the answer to the question of whether social media marketing is a marketing panacea or an example of the Emperor’s New Digital Clothes is the same answer to the question of whether any element of marketing is right for an organization, brand, or product; it depends.

It depends on whether or not it is right for the organization, brand, or product. And that is why marketing just isn’t as easy as some folks would have you believe.

¹ Noto was speaking at the Goldman Technology Conference in San Francisco on February 15, 2017.

² When you read this, the passing of time should have proved me right or wrong.

³ I do appreciate that there will be a number of journalists and others who may follow this Twitter account in order to report on, or criticize the tweets without actually having voted for President Trump.