When you’re drinking the social media “Kool-Aid”, it is not difficult to start thinking that everybody should be drinking it as well. Given its ability to enhance communications, marketing and sales, it makes no sense for any company to be sitting on the sidelines.
Or does it?
If you step back from the fray, there are lots of companies and many sectors not doing social media for a variety of reasons. In some cases, it makes no sense because the products or services they sell don’t align well with being social. In other cases, the target audiences aren’t into social media so there is no reason to allocate resources into activities that would see no consumption or return on investment.
Then, you have sectors that have to deal with regulatory or legal issues, which prevent if not dissuade them from using social media at all. A good example is the pharmaceutical industry, which deals with millions of consumers yet has completely shied away from social media because of regulatory issues.
Many banks and financial organizations such as pension funds and mutual funds are not using social media at all or using it in a modest way because they can’t be seen to be giving advice – again there’s regulatory issues.
And there are many law firms that, in theory, would like to carve out a competitive edge using social media but are afraid that it have an impact on the confidential nature of their relationships with clients.
It’s not that these sectors or companies don’t get social media or don’t want to do it, it’s just that they can’t or perhaps don’t think it is worth the effort to deal with the many hurdles to make it happen.
It makes for an interesting contrast given the continued enthusiasm about social media, and the fact many companies are still climbing on the bandwagon.
Truth be told, social media is not for everyone even though it may just seem that way.
Excellent thinking. This is one of the reasons that metrics can be difficult to generate in channels that include a mix of social and traditional media. If you can’t relate the social media based metrics to overall population data — which can happen in the resistant populations you describe here — you are hobbled in drawing inferences about population characteristics. One thing you then need to resist is over-relying on easy-to-collect data because they are available; just because they are available doesn’t mean the data will be useful!
Dennis,
The how do we measure the direct impact of social media is a question that I’m more often as companies really try to get a handle on the ROI. The reality is it can be difficult to accurately measure. Then again, what are the metrics on a billboard, magazine ad or radio spot? Social media is just part of the overall marketing mix as opposed to being a silver bullet. Thanks for the comment.
Mark
When you begin with a reference to “social media Kool-Aid,” you risk implying an either/or focus that’s not much different from that of relentless proponents of social media.
Within any large organization, you’ll find numerous functions, some of which can put social media tools to work effectively.
Yammer, for example, is an inside-the-firewall alternative to Twitter. At Cargill, where a few employees began using Yammer on their own in 2009, more that 7,000 people are now members. The Pentagon’s Defense Acquisition University also uses this form of microblogging, along with blogs and wikis, to facilitate knowledge-sharing among its faculty and staff.
Even for public-facing communications, it’s shortsighted to think of social media as utterly different from other forms of communication like mail or email. That’s the thinking reflected in guidelines like these from Roche pharmaceuticals.
The question for an organization to ask is not so much “Should I use (or avoid) this tool?” but “How can I address this challenge?”
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by sysomos, Liz Oke. Liz Oke said: RT @sysomos No Social Media for Us, Thank You « Sysomos Blog http://bit.ly/g1L6wN [...]
Mark – I agree that there’s a challenge. That’s why I think you need to start with the target population, then work back to measure exposure and impact, regardless of channel. I don’t see how else you can get an accurate read on the use and effectiveness of one channel vs another.
Just because you can measure exposure to one channel easily shouldn’t mean that you automatically project its effectiveness (or lack of) to another.
Dennis,
Excellent point about the value of target audiences – and whether social media fits their needs. Thanks for the comment. Mark
Much-needed post, Mark. No, Social Media marketing isn’t right for every business, and you’ve outlined the reasons beautifully. However, I also like Dennis’ comment above (and you’ve mentioned target audiences in your post too). While Social Media may not be right for everyone, before you can say a definite “no” (like so many businesses/companies/organizations do even without seriously looking into it) you really need to put yourself into your consumers’/clients’ (both current and prospective) shoes, and work your way back from the potential value you can provide to them, and the “exposure and impact” you’ll reap as a result.
Mark,
Dave Ferguson nails it: “The question for an organization to ask is not so much “Should I use (or avoid) this tool?” but “How can I address this challenge?””
Your blog post assumes an exclusively promotional role for social media.
Law offices, hospitals, financial institutions – any business or organization – can and should use social media as a source of information, a means of collaboration and as a way to reduce management costs.
What Stephen Da Cambra said.
In fact this is precisely why in my comment I talked about “Social Media marketing”, and not overall use of Social Media (which can still often be effectively used, even if you don’t want to promote/market through it).
Wow that was unusual. I just wrote an really long comment but after I clicked submit my comment didn’t appear. Grrrr… well I’m not writing all that over again. Regardless, just wanted to say excellent blog!