The messenger isn't the message, because the conduit never addresses a need. Celebrity endorsements may capture attention, but ultimately prove to be empty. They're also risky: Just think about Tiger Woods. Mike Myatt asked precisely the right question -- is your message relevant? [hat tip Mack Collier] -- in a recent post.
Dare I say this is the relevant question of the day?
Myatt breaks down some of the default position on messaging (in bold). My take as respects social media, because you're looking for answers there:
- The Medium “is” the Message: classic view of reach -- think big volume blogs, and Twitter accounts with a large following. The smaller scale of social media doesn't change its nature as a conduit.
- The Market “is” the Message: you may know what matters to a specific group -- are you talking to social media experts about social media? That's a very different group than business owners, for example. Yet we see people fall into that trap all the time -- thinking that they need to go to the mat and capture the attention of a non audience.
- The Message “is” the Message: content is only one part of what resonates -- especially in a fluid environment, context and connection still need to be at the fore in one to one conversations like those we experience in the smaller scale media.
- The Messenger “is” the Message: the land mine that will explode social media marketing is exactly this one -- the messenger isn't the message. No matter how indulgent the relationship with the new celebrity. As I said up front, celebrity is ultimately empty.
Message relevance still boils down to buyer, seller, and value proposition.
© 2010 Valeria Maltoni. All rights reserved.