The Problem With Social Media Agencies

The interactive marketing business has gone through some constructive battles in its first 10 years.  Here are the big three and what they mean to marketers and agencies today.

Interactive vs Traditional: Earning a Seat at the Table

Since the early days of internet marketing in the ‘90s, traditional advertising agencies – those plying their trade in television, print or radio - railed against the web as a viable medium.  Just one year ago they were still adamantly saying it wasn’t an effective platform on which to build brands or deliver emotional content.  In 2008 the battle began to subside.  Brands voted with their budgets, consumers responded with their attention, and interactive agencies earned their rightful seat at the table.

Instead of passively watching their billings divert toward web, traditional ad agencies lined up beside the enemy.  They began building their interactive capabilities and adopted a “fake it ‘till you make it” philosophy along the way, but the cost of entry was (and still is) steep.  Hiring all required areas – application developers, web developers, designers, QA, usability experts, analytics, SEO, strategists, project managers, account managers – and getting them working together took more than just money.  It will be another few years before we see the best traditional shops gain their footing in digital but one thing was clear after that first battle ended:  interactive marketing had earned its stripes.

Then along came social media.

Social Media Specialists vs Full-Service Interactive

You would be right to ask “social what?”  The internet is intrinsically social.  It always has been.  Social media existed in the ‘80s with email and in the ‘90s with discussion forums.  The web was created as a platform for sharing and networking.  It continues to evolve today as Facebook houses 300 million members to become the web’s 4^th largest site, YouTube serves 1 billion videos daily, and Twitter goes mainstream.

Enabling interaction has always been the goal of the internet.  The key difference today is the number of tools, touchpoints and connections we can leverage.  The term “social media” caught on quickly to describe a more participative, shareable web and social media consultants sprung up overnight.

As consultants, their core offer is typically a strategic roadmap on how to tap into social graphs and viral expansion loops (you tell 3 friends, they tell 3 friends…).  The problem is, social media and the broader field of interactive marketing are inseparable.  When social media consultants without technical or creative depth hand their instructions over to the brand, their advice may not be executable.  The result is often a mini Stonehenge.  Successful online initiatives require the synergistic interaction between 3 core competencies:

• Technology – to define the sandbox we play in
• Creative – to fill the sandbox with the right toys
• Strategy – to connect the people and other sandboxes

Brands are increasingly insisting that all 3 of these competencies work under the same roof as an integrated team.  Smart social media agencies who realize their pipelines are in jeopardy are staffing up and deepening their capabilities to comply.

So does that mean established digital shops get the full-service initiatives in the meantime?

Interactive vs Interactive:  Staying Ahead

Not necessarily.  Not all full-service interactive agencies have kept up with the rapid shift toward web-wide sharing and participation.  Opening themselves up to the idea of content creation from communities across the web is a significant shift away from what was once a tightly controlled message coming from a central website.

To some, their social media checklist involves bolting on a few share tools to the site, setting up a Facebook Page, and getting started on Twitter.  But brands are insisting on more thorough digital visions and online engagement strategies.  Leading-edge interactive agencies must be fully versed in eCRM, email marketing, RSS feeds, contest management platforms … the list is constantly evolving.

Just as we eventually dropped the “portable” in portable laptop, we may soon drop the “social” in social media.  The buzzword may die but the opportunities to engage brands with consumers across all digital touchpoints and devices will continue to expand.  Who will benefit?  Brands and consumers will, of course, as will the interactive marketing agencies sharp enough to stay ahead of the pack.

 

Follow Andrew Cherwenka on Twitter: www.twitter.com/cherwenka

Comments

[Kevin Barenblat]

Andrew, great article. I'd suggest a 4th area of competency that complements Technology, Creative and Strategy - Data.

Data seems often forgotten, or is deemed too technically difficult to implement in social, but measurement should form the cornerstone of any campaign, particularly a social one. How do brands track the interactions, quality of the engagement, viral sharing and pass-along, demographics, and re-engagement? It's the data that drives optimization of the technology, creative, and strategy that best engages the target audience.

Kevin Barenblat
Context Optional

[Pollinate]

I'm not sure if the title to this article is suitable. There isn't a problem with "Social Media Agencies" because there are no real "Social Media Agencies" out there as yet.

There is however a problem with interactive and creative agencies, in that most are unable to adapt. The "fake it" syndrome is what you get when creative agencies and interactive agencies try to pretend like they know what this new media is all about, and because they have the foot into the clients door, the client trusts that they know what they are doing.

You can't just call yourself an SMM agency just because you built a facebook page or blog for your last client. Or because you built a microsite that has social capabilities. Creative and interactive agencies create concepts, visuals, and technology, so that they can "market at" the consumer. They totally miss the "social' aspect all together, which is why they have a hard time adapting.

A social media agency is defined as a firm that builds strategies, creates concepts (both visually, socially and technology based), manages online properties (ongoing), builds the content (digital PR /content writing) and keeps that content fresh, and yes even builds interactive websites/platforms. Educating the client is all a part of the process.

Most agencies only do some, and not all of the above mentioned.

There are "real" social media ad agencies out there, brands just have to look.

great article!

Pollinate
www.pollinationmedia.com

[Raymond Leon Roker - Huffpost Blogger]

Well summarized, Andrew. But, to be honest, there's a little "fake it until you make it" in all of us right now, given the constantly churning information and best practices flow. Every one of us in in this major transition where nobody owns the answers. But, you nailed it on the separation of technology and content/strategy and I agree that traditional agencies are dead at the wheel in the new, new world.

We have clearly moved into a phase where the technology for distribution and syndication of content/me­ssage/medi­a is back in the hands of the technology folks. But the question that leaves me with is the role of content (as you call it, creative)?

My self-serving POV would argue that content is still a unique arena and that producers can't just be bull-penned in some hot shot (social) media agency, churning out the meat for an online skeleton. That, along with the "voice" of your customer (what does your Twitter sound like?) should still be very custom and specific authenticators for any brand. Fake this at your own peril.

At least I hope.

http://twitter.com/raymondroker

[Andrew Cherwenka - Huffpost Blogger]

Agreed, Raymond. Content is still king. We could use the best hypertargeting tactics to drive your ideal target audience to www.urb.com but if you didn't have great content, they wouldn't stay or share it.

To clarify, i'd never suggest agencies create content. We can help build your brand online but your content - like the features and reviews on urb.com, and all the things people consume when they go there - are all up to you.

[kappsy]

Andrew frankly, i am sick of hearing "content" is King...its not. That sounds a bit harsh, but lets be honest we have always lived in a content and information rich world. In the 3rd Century BC the Royal Library at Alexandria strove to capture thinking and texts from beyond the empires borders until, well, it all just disappeared. DaVinci gave us the CODEX, a great way to port content, Guttenberg the mass production print press to give the Codex legs, Google the highly efficient search algorithm. Content has always existed and is an organization of information. The truth, and certainly in the field within which many of us work, is that the real King is CONTEXT. How is that information structured for use cases and consumption.
Other than that I, of course, believe everything you have said.

[kurge71]

social media is simultaneously advertising, customer service and research. agencies that build service offerings connecting these three areas together will be doing right by their clients.

[GeorgeWilliams]

Good article Andrew.

With regards to the required core competencies of Technology, Creative and Strategy, I might also add in the ability of an agency to train a customer in the etiquette and use of social media. It's one thing to set up a social media campaign, but it's quite another to utilize it properly, effectively and socially. You can have all the technology, creative and strategy you want - but if you don't know how to talk to people, engage them and interact intelligently with your market, your social media campaign will never reach its full potential. ~ Learned from customer feedback and questions.

Keep up the great work!

George Williams
http://twitter.com/George_Williams

[Andrew Cherwenka - Huffpost Blogger]

Totally agree, George. Thanks.

[admavericks]

I completely agree with the notion that agencies have, "...a “fake it ‘till you make it” philosophy along the way" - in fact, an old boss told me that should be my philosophy. Hence the term "old boss"

You also wrote that "the cost of entry was (and still is) steep. Hiring all required areas – application developers, web developers, designers, QA, usability experts, analytics, SEO, strategists, project managers, account managers – and getting them working together took more than just money."

The reason traditional ad agencies have struggled thus far is that they are trying to build it all themselves. I'm not talking about companies like Razorfish, they are specific to interactive. I'm talking about some of the larger conglomerate owned agencies that don't understand how social media works so the call it a fad. Agencies should treat interactive development like print vendors. At the end of the day, you need something created. Leave the strategy, the creative and the concepts to the agencies, let a web development firm do everything else. Doing this allows agencies to be more nimble and less likely to lay off of tech people who agency brass typically don't understand anyway.

www.admavericks.com

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-cherwenka/the-problem-with-social-m_b_343085.html

[Andrew Cherwenka - Huffpost Blogger]

I respectfully disagree, Maverick. We've been on the receiving end of those handoffs from traditional agencies and they rarely work. What does work is when interactive (including tech) has a seat at the table, right alongside traditional. Everybody collaborates. The tech people from interactive advise on what's possible, expand on ideas, rein in the impossible ones.

I know Nike+ is an overused example but it's a great tech-driven platform made possible by R/GA's early technical input. They didn't start with the messaging. They started with the concept of a chip in a shoe, which enabled a community of runners to socialize around their workout data, which led to a powerful platform.

If agency brass don't understand tech then they'll have to learn. No way around it.

[RichardStacy]

The Problem with Social Media is - its not really a digital thing at all.

I tend to find that the first thing an organisation has to do if it really wants to operate in the social media space - is realise that their current digital / interactive agency is unlikely to give them the right answer (no matter how creative and digitally luscious), because that answer will always be the creation of some new digital thing / place / home for an old-fashioned one-to-many mass message.

The social media revolution is all about the fact that information can be freed means of distribution (be that newspapers or websites). Influence no longer lies in places (digital or otherwise), or even networks - it lies in spaces. You don't influence spaces with the one-to-many mass message approach which has been the theme of both the traditional ad agencies and the interactive agencies that replaced them.

But there again - I am a social media consultant, so I would say that! By the way - I never offer "a strategic roadmap on how to tap into social graphs and viral expansion loops" - quite the opposite in fact, I counsel that this is a mindset that an organisation needs to abandon.

More on this at http://richardstacy.com/my-articles/

[Andrew Cherwenka - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks Richard. I would argue there's nothing old about a one-to-many mass message or a digital home. Central sites and brand identities created by the brands are still vital parts of marketing. Influence lies elsewhere but it's still up to the brands and their agencies to tell us what they represent.

[pete 3ships]

Hey Andrew,

This was a very thought-provoking piece. I found the assertion that "social media" might soon lose the "social" qualification interesting.

I think there will still be a clear delineation between news pieces and similar ilk, one-to-many communications that may develop social aspects in conversation around them, and communciations expressly done as social activities, such as the conversations on Twitter and Facebook.

I wonder what you think about the specific ways interactive agencies "will stay ahead of the pack" as they practice social media.

Thanks for the great post,

Peter Wylie
Three Ships Media
@pete_threeships

[Andrew Cherwenka - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks Pete. Well put. I agree, some sites and platforms are more inherently social than others like Twitter vs a news site. It's pretty amazing to see how leading sites like www.nytimes.com are engaging their communities, isn't it? The word social applies (or should apply) to most sites we see now.

How will the best agencies stay ahead of the pack? By keeping abreast of the technology and understanding how it integrates with the brand's digital presence across all screens and devices. The specific ways change almost daily, which is why brands are insisting their agencies be fully immersed in it. Who knows what the next highly interactive platforms or tools will be? It's a fascinating space to live in.

[randeg]

Thank you for the historical background of media advertising in general until the current social media marketing came along. It is amazing how all these things have grown by leaps and bounds. The problem is not with staying ahead but the lack of enough time to interact is keeping me behind.

Evelyn Guzman
http://www.homebusinesssteps.com (If you want to visit, just click but if it doesn’t work, copy and paste it onto your browser.)

[Andrew Cherwenka - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks Evelyn. It's tough for small businesses in particular to dedicate time online even though they can often benefit the most. Keep in mind though, not every comment or tweet requires a response. Take a real life analogy: a keynote speaker isn't expected to answer every question in the crowd.

[ZimblerMiller]

Andrew --

This is an excellent post. I particularly liked your comment about some interactive agencies not having "kept up with the rapid shift toward web-wide sharing and participation."

I also find that many major companies have not yet appreciated the importance of monitoring and protecting their brand by actively participating in interactive media. In some cases I believe the fear factor is very strong. Yet these companies should be more fearful of what can happen if they don't jump into the deep end (or at least start by wading into the shallow end).

Phyllis Zimbler Miller
http://twitter.com/ZimblerMiller

[Andrew Cherwenka - Huffpost Blogger]

Totally agree, Phyllis. Thanks for the comments.