Social Media and Marketing: Alan Wolk

You are probably aware that recently the discussion on pay-per-post ignited again. There is a fascinating need to keep things separate - social media and earnings. Yet, there are many who are working with social media to make a living.

For many years I curated the readers' network of Fast Company magazine. With help - at some point we even had a nice group of volunteers, then life separated us - I put together around 100 free events. It was a lot of work. If you have organized events you know it is. Sometimes we were lucky enough to get a food sponsor. The venue was always donated - I'm talking conference rooms at Universities, Steelcase showrooms, ING Direct Cafe' - all nice places. 

All events were free to attendees - they actually cost the work of those who put them together. There was this sense that charging for attending would be wrong. It was a social network, after all. It needed to remain pure. That was then. Social media is becoming more main stream now. Yet, we seem to be bumping against that same issue.

I'm left wondering then, what is the model that will not get people up in arms? What can sustain social media? I thought of asking my friend Alan Wolk to help me see the issue from where he sits - the Toad's Stool. 

_____________________

In a recent conversation around the sanctity of social media at Amber Naslund's blog, you distilled the issues into three fundamental questions: (1) sponsorship worth; (2) audience; (3) credibility. To me these seem to be also the timeless principles that marketers and advertising professionals have followed or should be following? What changed with social media?

Alan: Nothing changed.

Which is the problem.

Most of the Kool-Aid Drinkers have very little sense of history-- either they’re very young or they’ve never really worked in advertising or marketing. They never see shades of gray-- the whole world is black and white. That holds true on both sides.

So this became either a tragedy of biblical proportions as bloggers sold their souls to evil K-Mart or discovered the Northwest Passage to successful blog monetization.

What really happened was neither epic nor brilliant.

A company that used to called “Pay For Post” rebranded itself as IZEO and decided that using the euphemism “Sponsored Content” was far more palatable than “Pay for Post”

Then they found a bunch of bloggers, who, in the name of “experimenting” “proving that I am truly famous beyond this little bubble” or some combination thereof, were willing to make a big deal out of a rather uninventive online sales promotion event for just $500.

Now given that a quarter page in the local Pennysaver goes for around $500, I’d say KMart and IZEO made out like bandits. Not only did they get a case study, they also got a tremendous amount of buzz with the sort of people (the primarily upscale crew who read social media blogs) who may not even have been aware that KMart was still in business. And while most of the sites chosen made little sense from a demographic standpoint, for $500, if they reached 3 people, it was money well spent.

For the bloggers however, I’m guessing they lost more readers than they gained, giving them a net negative ROI. (And I’m basing that on the assumption that they did not gain any new readers, but lost a handful of formerly loyal ones and have lots of negative fallout to deal with.)

But is it a “model for blog monetization?”

Not in the slightest.

It’s a one-trick pony that got a lot of attention because it was new and controversial. If Pay-per-Post were to start to become commonplace, people would just stop paying attention. First to the posts and then, ultimately to the blogger him or herself. There are just too many other blogs out there putting out similar “how to do social media 101” content where the reader doesn’t have to wade through paid posts.

In addition, most marketing blogs are too niche to attract any sort of real audience. (Compared to sites like PerezHilton, HuffPo or even Gawker, which get millions of readers weekly.) So using marketing blogs to promote mainstream companies and sites doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Promoting an app like Twirl or Joost for the iPhone is far more logical, but that’s a whole other post-in-the-making.

What in your experience is working or going to work as an advertising model in social media?

Alan: I think, funny enough, that sponsored content is going to be what works. And by that I mean taking something that people actually want to use and making it available by sponsoring it.

Twitter may work by selling hourly sponsorships, where there’s say an Apple skin on the Twitter site from 7 to 11 AM every weekday and when you first log in you get a tweet-ad from Apple.

It can be as basic as Pizza Hut building a Facebook app that lets you order a pizza without ever leaving Facebook (something they’ve actually done.) But it has to be something that proves to be a useful tool for your audience, that’s about them and their needs, not about you.

You shared your take on brands in social media in the series your brand is not my friend. Would you like to give a couple of examples of what steps you would recommend?

Alan: Well, building on the example above, I think that brands who are not “Prom King Brands” (the dozen or so well-known brands like Apple and Nike that have badge value, e.g. someone would unironically wear their logo on a cap or t-shirt-- plus entertainment brands and sports teams) that those non-Prom King brands need to find a way to provide something of value to their customers and to gradually get people talking about them that way.  

So first step is seeing what your opportunity is: if you are a spice manufacturer, maybe you’re aware that there’s an active community of crock pot users. And so you work with someone who actually does cooking sites to set up something for crock pot users- a recipe file, a recipe of the day-- maybe you even do a bit more research and learn that they’re big with working moms who like being able to have a hot meal waiting when they come home. And so your recipes are all about meals kids will eat, not super gourmet stuff. (I’m thinking that you could probably come up with something a lot more unique than a recipe file, but for purposes of this example, let’s run with it.) 

And the most important thing here is that you need to get out of your own way: don’t try and “capture names.” Don’t insert your brand into the recipe. Those are buzz kills and they do more harm than good in the long term. 

Once that’s established, you can start doing things like providing coupons to users, links to mail ordering your products, even start a blog. But the key thing is not to push, not to come off as overly aggressive. Yes, you are selling something, but you are never the sleazy salesperson. 

Why? Because this is social media and people are here to socialize- not hear sales pitches. The more unobtrusive you can make yours, the more that indicates to your audience that you “get” them, the better off you are. 

What's next? What do you see in the future of marketing as more and more companies (and brands) venture into the social media waters? 

Alan: The biggest question in my mind is how big brands will play in social media. 

Right now, much of social media is graspable because it’s still in its nascency. But as it grows, it becomes rather unwieldy. Take blog comments, for instance. Who is going to read through 647 comments on a blog? No one. So The New York Times is now handling this by having the first page of comments you see be “Editor’s Choice” - an interesting decision because it reintroduces the role of the all-powerful editor-as-gatekeeper, which was one of the walls that Web 2.0 knocked down. 

So we’re going to see a whole lot of chaos before we see some order restored and larger communities formed. And I think people like larger communities, like things like Facebook, because everyone they know is (or could be) on there versus a smaller, more private network. And it’s important to remember too that social media is a behavior, not a collection of web sites. It’s the ability to provide input into a site, via a comment, a rating or an upload. So no matter what happens to Twitter or Facebook, the behavior is not going away. 

But circling back to your original question, I think we’re going to see a lot of brands behaving badly in social media. 

They’ll behave badly- or foolishly- because they can’t fathom that the one-way conversation is over and that consumers aren’t fascinated by what they have to say. 

And they’ll behave badly because they’ll be advised by bad social media strategists, the ones who focus on quantity over quality, and by ad agencies who still see the clever punch line and the name capture as their most important goals. 

Some will get it though, either on their own or with a wise hand to guide them. They’ll realize that it’s a commitment to more than just responding to blog comments in a timely manner and keeping a Twitter account. That it’s about making the customer front and center of whatever you do and of giving them products and services that they’ll want to tell other people about. 

Those are the companies that are going to be shaping our future. At least in social media.

Comments

[Brian DR1665]

Wow. Just. Wow.

Talk about flying in the face of the status quo. The best way to sell anything through social media is to, basically, not actively sell anything through social media. Sell your organization. Sell yourself. By being yourself.

You want to cheapen a post with commercial content? I'm not interested. You want to charge me for access to content? I'll go elsewhere. You want to co-exist with me in cyberspace, treating my virtual persona as if you and I were the only ones in a room somewhere, talking over coffee? Well, there's a really good chance that, when I have a need, you'll be the one I come to for fulfillment.

There needs to be genuine trust. Trust can not exist where there are ulterior motives.

[Amber Naslund]

So Alan talked about two things that really resonated with me here, and are going to be critical, in my mind, to the future of this "stuff".

1) "Get out of your own way". Companies just cannot cope with the idea that brand elevation can happen without their interference. The companies that get this will stand out because they're trusting their customers to be smart enough to find the value in what they're presenting, and do something with it.

2) I think big brands screwing up is going to be key, because it's going to teach everyone what to do by showing - with much fanfare - how NOT to do it. Instead of cramping our brains coming up with the holy set of guidelines, we're going to arrive at what's acceptable for different communities by process of elimination. Some companies will never recover from their missteps. Others will learn, and thrive.

Alan, you do us all a favor by maintaining such a lucid, level-headed perspective about all of this and sharing your widsom based in years of experience (vs. speculation). Thanks.

[Liz Strauss]

I most like the model in which a brand finds a site where conversation is already happening within a commmunity likely to use their product, allowing the brand to offer that site a service -- the crockpot example that Alan points out above. As I understand, Huggies had success doing just that with a site built around toilet training.

But I keep thinking about celebrity "commercials" of the past: In the early days of TV talk show hosts did commercials during their programs. Some were entertaining and fun. Where does that fit in?

This podcast brought to you by Wheaties the Breakfast of Bloggers doesn't bother me at all, but I'd have to eat Wheaties to be part.

As far as companies screwing up goes, when the marketing and PR folks understand that to come online in "stealth" as learners thinking about their customers ... rather as "pros" shining the holy grail limelight on every campaign, they'll be more like to get a helping hand when they trip up.

[Carri]

Hi,

As I work for IZEA (not IZEO :), I have to say that we couldn't be more thrilled with the genuine debate the KMart campaign has sparked.

For me, the best take away from this post is that IZEA, which is the umbrella company for PayPerPost, BloggersChoiceAwards, CloudShout and SocialSpark (which ran the KMart and Sears campaigns), should not be the endgame to Blog Monetization.

What we hope to do is spark conversations so that companies can then get more involved as an online presence. However, once the conversation has been started, it is up to the companies themselves to really get in their and connect.

All the Best,
Carri Bright
IZEA Communications

[Carri]

Oh, goodness! I meant to say, get in there and connect. Not their. ::sigh::

[Alan Wolk (The Toad Stool)]

Hi. Thank you all for the comments

@Brian: It constantly surprises me how what I see as just plain common sense seems to swim against the current in the marketing/social media world. You sum up my position nicely.

@Amber: Thanks for persevering and commenting (there were some technical difficulties) - I try and maintain a pretty level-headed notion of what marketing can and can't do. The company has to put out a good product in order for the marketing to work, especially these days.

@Liz: I think it's okay for brands to sponsor things so long as they don't bother with the editorial content. The issue with TV was that it cost money to put on a show-- you had to pay the actors, the prop people, the camera crew, the lighting techs-- it was expensive and the audience go that Texaco or whomever was underwriting the cost of the show. Blogs don't have that issue, so it's a different ballgame. However, if someone wanted to say, sponsor me, so I could do nothing but write the blog, I'd be all over that.

@Carri. I find I do that too - realize after I posted that I used the wrong their/there/they're. Not sure why- it may just be that typing online makes us sloppier.

[bg]

@Alan, agree with all your points. Anyone holding this up as a shining example of innovative thinking needs to switch careers. At best, it’s Pavlovian: Wave cash at anyone and they’ll jump.

@Carri - The usual ‘Any PR is good PR’ mantra sounds like the ends justify the means. Genuine debate hasn’t been part of this. From all the comments I read, anyone who disagreed or who raised fair questions of participating bloggers’ are dismissed as trolls and living in the past.

[CharityHisle]

I am relatively new to social media (08/08). Therefore, I am no expert in the industry, just a regular user of the social media tools.

Speaking as a regular user, I didn't have a problem with the KMart sponsored post. I saw the backlash. I read through everyone's comments all over the net and Twitter, but I wasn't offended. Seriously, $500 isn't that much money, certainly not enough to buy the integrity of a well-known and consistent blogger.

All over the web you'll see the demand for big brands to participate in social media, and they have to start somewhere. Using bloggers we trust is a fair place to begin. Let's face it, there have been and will continue to be worse attempts made by big brands to secure social media ground. As long as the bloggers post the association/relationship I am not offended by sponsorship.