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]

05:39 PM on 11/09/2009

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]

09:51 PM on 11/04/2009

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]

10:06 AM on 11/04/2009

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]

01:59 PM on 11/04/2009

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]

01:43 PM on 11/06/2009

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.

[pegu]

02:22 PM on 11/11/2009

I agree, there's really no "Social Media Agency" and anyone who pretends to be so is simply trying to brand and prey on the ignorance of others.

"Social Media" is simply just another delivery platform for marketing / branding / you-name-i­t.

I think what's really missing in this area is metrics. There is no standardiz­ation of measuring any type of awareness or effectiven­ess of campaigns. While comScore and Nielsen are not by any means perfect in their areas, social media is one area where everyone is claiming "success" and "victory" without any ability to audit and understand the realities of the situation. Most of the "whiz-kid" / "viral" stories would be less interestin­g to all of us if we really knew the details.

Case in point, from the film industry that I work in:
* A blockbuste­r "no foul language" quirky indie film that grossed almost $50MM. Little do people know the viral effect was really the result of $100Ks of marketing dollars ... "social" yes ... truly innovative no.
* A duo of filmmakers who took their bio-pic of their relationsh­ip and branded themselves as "social media" experts, promoting their film online. Little do people know that the result of all this "social media" (branded as whiz-kids by the press) resulted in $3,000 of box office. "social" yes ... truly effective no.

[kurge71]

02:59 AM on 11/04/2009

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]

04:41 PM on 11/03/2009

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]

08:52 PM on 11/03/2009

Totally agree, George. Thanks.

[admavericks]

12:23 PM on 11/03/2009

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]

08:50 PM on 11/03/2009

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]

10:42 AM on 11/03/2009

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]

01:51 PM on 11/03/2009

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]

09:59 AM on 11/03/2009

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]

01:36 PM on 11/03/2009

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]

08:36 AM on 11/03/2009

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]

01:01 PM on 11/03/2009

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]

01:35 AM on 11/03/2009

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]

12:52 PM on 11/03/2009

Totally agree, Phyllis. Thanks for the comments.