Elastic Thought

Agency of the Decade

Last week an old colleague of ours trumpeted on Facebook that the agency he works for was named "Agency of the Decade" …. again.  Aside from the fact that he doesn't work for Edelman it struck me as odd that this would be something to boast about.  Especially from a Public Relations company tasked with forming "relationships" between the companies that pay them and the publics they speak to.

A little background, first.  (and this is not meant to be a depressing, doomsday post -- stick with it).  A quick Google search for "job growth in the last decade" will bring up multiple versions of the same headline.  Here are a few:

• "Off the Charts -Job Growth Lacking in the Private Sector" - NY Times
• "Lost Decade for Job Growth" - MarketWatch (Wall Street Journal)
• "A Lost Decade for Jobs" - BusinessWeek

In summary, at no other time since the depression have we added 0 jobs in a 10-year period.  (actually, we lost over 200K)

Add to that the fact that salaries have remained stagnant in the last decade as well.  College reports indicate that starting salaries have remained constant, or if they grew, grew slower than inflation.  (if you are doing the math on your own salary, keep in mind that you would have to have a 25-30% increase over the past 10 years to keep up).  NPR has been reporting similar stories that most Americans have seen little to no growth in their compensation over the past 10 years, as well as other media outlets.

But you can't blame a PR company for the economy, right?

Let's look at a different trend--social media.  Many attribute the beginnings of social media to the Cluetrain Manifesto.  An excerpt:

"Most corporations, on the other hand, only know how to talk in the soothing, humorless monotone of the mission statement, marketing brochure, and your-call-is-important-to-us busy signal. Same old tone, same old lies. No wonder networked markets have no respect for companies unable or unwilling to speak as they do."

And these companies often made use of one of the best humorless, monotone generators there is: the PR firm.  A humorous look:

They say that behind every great joke lies a foundation of truth.  And the truth is that social media is a rebellion against corporate speak.  A statement, a movement that says "stop talking to us through the inhuman tones written by your marketing group, your corporate communications group, and especially…your PR company.  talk to us like human beings.  And for once, just tell us the truth."

Oh, and one more thing.  Have you had a conversation lately about customer service?  I don't think you need a link to a NY Times article to know that customer relations is worse than it's ever been.

Let me repeat that.  At no other time has the relationship between the public and the companies they/we deal with on a daily basis ever been worse.

So why would a company that makes its business on forming "relationships" between companies and the public boast about being the "Agency of the Decade?"   Why would there even be such an award this decade?  A decade where everything from jobs, to salaries, to general disdain for the American public has had such low performance?  In a time when the fastest growing movement (social media) stemmed from wanting to put an end to the PR dribble companies and agencies were spitting out?

If there was to be an "anything" of the decade as it relates to actual public relations, it would have to go the many early adopters of social media.  it would go to the founders of Facebook, and MySpace, and Twitter, and YouTube, and LinkedIn and countless other social media enabling sites.  NOT some public, conglomerate-held PR agency that won the award based on billings growth.  It was social media that actually began to improve the relationships between companies and public.  And will continue to do so.

So… agency of the decade?  It's kind of like the Biggest Loser, only you are not healthier after winning the award.

Intestine-Based Decision-Making

In the pilot episode of the political satire program "The Colbert Report," the term Truthiness was unveiled by Stephen Colbert and was used to describe "things that a person claims to know intuitively or from the gut without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts."

There is a long background to this term, but it is the "gut feel" that I'm curious about right now.  Where it was maligned in earlier criticism of former President George W Bush, and then reiterated from the New York Times to Canadian Parliament, it seems to be gaining in popularity.  And most often in the social media field right now.

After hearing a Southwest Airlines presentation on social media, the question was asked about what tools they use to monitor, gauge trends, measure, and qualify conversations to join and which to avoid, and general research practices.  The answer?  Roughly "gut feel."  Actually, it's more like "when you are participating in the space, you have a general feel for what is going on and you can generally tell what needs to be done and where to go."  (paraphrased)  And if it weren't for the 4 or 5 other Fortune 500 companies that have responded in the same manner within the last month or so to the same question, I would have let it go at that.  From podcasts, to presentations, to blog posts, they are heralding the intuitive properties of some of their youngest employees guts.  (maybe because they are in better shape than some of the older ones?)

But why gut feel?  Why would these companies not want further evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or other means of quantifying this field that is becoming more and more important to brand perception, company reputation, and purchase decision/behavior?  Marketers for years have used data from focus groups, point of purchase data and a myriad of psychological data to hone their craft.  Yet with social media, Fortune 500 companies are letting their online reputation be managed by gut feel.  And in some cases, those guts have only been out of college as long as social media has been around.  Barely enough time to truly understand the company's many efforts in other channels, or understanding of crisis communications, corporate reputation as a practice, or otherwise.

But they know how to use Facebook and Twitter.

Now, I'll grant you that I learned a lot from Malcolm Gladwell in Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking but I'm not sure he was promoting "gut feel."  He does argue that "intuitive judgment is developed by experience, training, and knowledge."  And granted, with the immediate nature of the online world, there will need to be some gut calls made in response.

But to publicly celebrate gut feel?  To eschew intellectual examination?  I'm not sure if that is truly what is best for the companies, their online presence or the practice of social media.  I still remember the episode of "The Office" where Michael drives his car into a lake because that's what the GPS told him to do.  Perhaps a combination of technology, tools AND gut feel will be the answer.

Until then, I look forward to a representative from one of these Fortune 500 companies that explains the intellectual side of their thought out, reasoned, and evidence-based plan.  As much as I like Stephen Colbert, I hope that the practice of Social Media or it's "best practices" are not shrouded in truthiness and that those that learn from these presentations do not go away thinking that they, too, can manage their company's online reputation on gut feel.

Illustration: Timo Elliott

2 Secrets of Agencies to Watch Out For

In the general public, it's called "caveat emptor" and it does not mean "Seize the Day," but rather "Buyer Beware!"  In terms of agencies, caveats are what we put into proposals to try and mitigate scope creep on projects and more fully explain the estimate of fees.  Also, since agencies do not fit under the implied warranty of fitness,  it's a wide open playing field for an industrious account exec looking to make a name for themselves in the agency.

And this is the point where, after years and years in the industry, I'm still baffled by it.  It used to be a well connected account exec that "knew a guy."  As in: " you need something that my firm doesn't have expertise in?  Don't worry, I know a guy that can do that for you."  But now it's moved beyond that.  Now it's simply: "We can do that."  Even if they can't.  And that's where I'm troubled by this trend.  Let's look at just 2 ways this is put into practice:

1. The infallible agency.  It doesn't matter what the request is, the answer is "we can do that."  And if there is no one in the agency that can, they will either a) hire freelancers with the particular skill or b) ask one of their employees to literally "learn on the job."  The issue here is that these scenarios hurt more than just the client.  For obvious reasons, the situation in (b) is just wrong.  Why wouldn't the company, then, send one of it's employees to training and learn on the job themselves?  And in the case of (a), again, why would the company not just hire freelancers themselves?  The answer that a rational person would give is that they are expecting the agency to bring a level of expertise and experience that can't simply be "learned on the job" or taught in a class.

Yet, this part is not taken into account when the agency accepts (and bids on!) the assignment.  There is no value add.  And that gives every agency a black eye.  I'd even be OK if the agency had a competency in project management that allowed for the freelance option to work.  However, more often than not, this is not the case.  And so, when one agency does this and fails, companies begin to place us all in the same category--as snake oil salesmen that will tell you anything to get the deal.

2. Put this "in a pill."  The other area that fits the category of buyer beware is this next scenario.  Once an agency successfully does a project for a client, they realize they can now sell this "solution" to additional clients.  All that is standing in the way is a well-written marketing slick that talks about how this offering is a dedicated practice in the firm and that they bring a wealth of experience to the table.  This is tricky, since some agencies have actually done this for several clients and can legitimately claim this.  And that is smart marketing.  I wonder how those agencies who put in the time and effort to hone these particular offerings, or went through the time and expense to merge with or acquire the talent feel about the agencies who claim the same offering with just a few well-written paragraphs and the notion that they can fall back on #1 above if they actually sell something?

This is not a lecture on ethics or fairness of competition.  This is not complaining that the other guy is using steroids, only to justify your own use.  This is a piece on buyer beware.  And if possible, a chance to turn the conversation into "Caveat venditor" (or let the seller beware).  With informed companies making hiring decisions of agencies, if they know what to look for, they may begin to spot these trends.  And that puts the agencies other work at risk.  If the agency is doing a good job in one area and begins to exaggerate their skills in another area, does that put the entire relationship at risk?  It is our hope that it does.  Let the seller beware.

Personal Branding Versus the Firm

Talk to a PR veteran.  Watch him or her work.  And I don't mean the young AE's fresh out of J School.  The ones who the companies go to when the national pitch is on the line.  The ones who get called in when the sh$t hits the fan.  Those PR veterans.  Listen to them talk to the editors and journalists, and lawyers and TV producers on the phone.  You start to notice something.  They don't mention the name of the PR firm they work for.  It's not that they're hiding it.  It's because it doesn't matter at this particular point in time.  The veterans doing this work have relationships.  They know who they are talking to on the other end, and the other end knows the PR person they are talking to.  Business is going to get done, and it's going to get done because of the relationship--not because of who's name is printed on the paychecks.

Now look at what's going on today.  The social media tools readily--and freely--available today allow anyone to build an audience.  And the larger the audience, the more "followers" and "friends" they have, the more power they can leverage out of the exponential possibilities of their networked audience.  People have become personal brands.

Jump back to the PR firms now.  They are racing to figure out the social media space.  And in doing so, they are bringing in some of those personal brands out there and bringing them in front of their clients.  But here is the difference about what's going on now that should make you stand up and take notice: these PR firms are touting the person, they are not touting the firm.  Look at their presentations, no real mention of the PR firm's name, they are completely branded to the individual.  The theory is that the person's brand (their built-in audience size) is more crucial to the sale of the work than the firm's history or it's client list, or it's number of offices.

What's ironic is that this isn't exactly new.  Think back to the opening paragraph about the PR veteran who did their work based on relationships.  The difference is that previously, these gurus worked in the big firms because there wasn't a way to tout their individual brand.

Now there is.

So here is my question.  Do you really need a big firm to be effective?  If each individual PR practitioner has the power to build a network, to self-promote, and to use their numbers to the benefit of the client, then what is the value of the big firm?  It's a mixed bag.  It can certainly be useful as a proving ground for young PR AE's fresh out of J School.  Theoretically, if the veteran gurus haven't left, there is a network in the firm to learn from.  But what if they leave?  There is a trend of entrepreneurial upstarts leaving and creating new firms that are agile enough to compete in today's market.  Ad Age's editorial in April was entitled "Big agencies face challenge from social-media upstarts."  (I'd link you, but they lock their articles).  Web 2.0 Journal asks "Is the PR Business Extinct?" then quickly answer: "Yes."

Though I don't see the power of PR going "extinct," I do think the traditional model has eroded enough to cause serious concern.  The new agencies that survive will not only understand the new toolset, but they will understand how to harness personal brands, and give them a reason why they should work together for a fresh, agile, smart firm that understands how to leverage their combined firm and personal brands.

Marketers Need To Try A New Diet

I'm not usually one to pay attention to fad diets and ways to lose weight without trying.  A pill here, more sleep there, drink more water, and voila! 10 pounds lighter.  However, there is a new string of ideas that I've been catching that seem to make sense.  So for a challenge, I thought I'd see if I could explain why my mind instantly connected it to marketing budgets.  Don't judge me.

The two ideas that sparked this are very similar actually.  The first is called the "camera-phone diet" which consists of taking a picture of what you are about to eat with the camera feature on your phone.  The theory is that by thinking of what you are eating, and documenting BEFORE munching down makes one more conscience of their choices in food, and quickly begin ordering and eating better food.  The second idea was even simpler.  The study showed that those who tried new foods frequently were apt to be healthier than the control group who ate in their typical pattern day in and day out.  The theory is relatively the same, in that the people that chose new foods frequently were more conscience of what they were eating and thought about their decisions.  The control group that mindlessly ate without thinking were trapped in a cycle of bad food choices.

So, to marketing.  I'm sure your getting the connection now.  Real simple: mindlessly doing the same tactics over and over again will not yield the same results as a "mixed diet."

And I think this goes beyond simply thinking about the marketing budget and tactics more before spending.  I'm sure every marketing person out there who is responsible for the budget and has check-writing authority thinks about their tactics.  But they continually choose the same tactics.  They are afraid of spending money on an unknown and untested tactic or strategy and will seek refuge in the comfort of known tactics that have predictable metrics.

But what about the consumer you are trying to reach?  There are two things working against the marketer who plays it safe.  One, technology continues to evolve.  Usually, to battle the intrusion of previous marketing tactics.  Tivo, Pop-Up Blockers, Spam Filters, Do Not Call Lists (OK, not technology, but fits here...right?)  And two, consumers themselves stop paying attention to the same drumbeat.  It takes something new to shake them out of that rut and pay attention to your message.

I saw a tweet the other day that said "there is no charge for awsomeness, but mediocrity will cost you."  We've seen it time and time again, that those who mix their diet up and try new things more often than not, outperform those companies that are in their same old rut of stale programs.  Try something new.  And if you can't think of anything new, ask one of the new agencies sprouting up.  I'm sure they will at least challenge your thinking.

What your clients are asking about social media

If you've taken a minute from your busy schedule evangelizing social media, you may hear them starting to ask questions.  And they're good questions.  We recently compiled a list for an event of the local Interactive Marketing Association (GIMA) and added a few of what we've heard from our clients to the list.  I'd be interested to hear feedback, or use the comments section here to debate the answers.  There is never one answer, but there are some good directions, and great intel to be had in this list.  Take this and share it.  It will help you be prepared for your next pitch.

1. There has been a lot of talk regarding calculating the ROI of using Social Media in the overall marketing mix.  Do you think that we can decipher customer motivation from social media alone outside of the entire marketing mix?
2. Money is obviously a factor in today’s advertising budgets.  If we were going to add these lower-cost digital tactics to our plans and budgets, which ones do you feel have the biggest “bang for the buck?”
3. A lot of these tactics and strategies we hear work well for consumer marketing.  We do B2B work.  Do you feel these digital tactics and strategies have the same impact on B2B clients?
4. Target audiences vary by product.  There is a lot of push-back that these are not as effective for audiences older than 30 than for under.  Is this changing?  Are there things I can show my boss to help change his/her mind?
5. When staffing for these new marketing programs (or looking for an agency) what qualifications should we be looking for in a person/agency?
6. What is a typical budget for social media?  The tools are mostly free, but I’m assuming this isn’t as cheap as our budget planners think.
7. How would a company go about starting off a campaign using these new strategies if they’ve never done any digital marketing before?
8. There are lots of varying ideas on this, but I’m curious...who do you feel “owns” the brand?  (customers, companies, social media “loudmouths”, others?)
9. Why is everyone all of a sudden getting on Facebook?
10. What is your viewpoint on design in the new social media space?  It seems that there is less of an emphasis on good user design in these new tools.  Some of them are downright sloppy.
11. It’s clear that you can no longer “build it and they will come,” so how do you go about driving people to online programs?
12. How is mobile going to change what we all do right now in digital marketing?
13. Let’s say I build a great site where I want a community to start, use all the new social media tools to gain exposure, and have a good background of search, display ads, and other “block and tackle” digital marketing to get it noticed.  How then, so I get people to engage with the site once they are there?
14. Are there any digital marketing tools in the toolbox today that you think are going to be obsolete in the near future?
15. What are the top 3-5 research tools online buyers and planners use?
16. What is the set up of responsibilities for online/mobile buying and planning? Is the planner and buyer one role and handled by one position? Or is emerging media planned in a traditional way by a planning team?
17. How is the buy handed off to the creative team for fulfillment? What software is mainly used for contracting and reporting? DoubleClick or Pointroll or any other?
18. Investment in social media marketing requires a buy-in from all levels in an organization, from those who control the information to those who distribute it via the various channels. What advice do you have for organizations on how to engage all of the stakeholders?  Increase communication between layers?

Hijacking Brands

It still echos in my mind.  "I don't want to go out there on the Internet and let those people hijack my brand."  Heard it, before?  I'm sure you have.  There is still a perception that companies still own their brand completely, and that if they stay in the controllable mediums for communication, they can continue to have complete control of "their" brand.

I've blogged about this before, but wanted to revisit and talk about the enabler aspect of this and get your feedback.  We know that brands don't completely own their brand.  But we also know that the social media world online hasn't taken the brand over, either.  The "brand" becomes the culmination of how the consumer interprets the messages and experiences surrounding a particular product or service.  The internet certainly broadens the scope of messages and experiences received, but it is just a larger pool of conversations that were going on about any brand anyway.  It's just that now they are more public for people to find and read, and for companies to participate and engage if they so choose--where they couldn't before.

Now, this part about the enabler.  It gets interesting here.  CMOs may feel that the Internet in and of itself doesn't hijack the brand, but it does enable those that want to.  But here is the question, is a negative blog post, a Chevy Tahoe mashup, or some foul language on the Skittles Twitter feed considered a hijacked brand?  You could say that Chevy put the tools up there to allow people to say negative things about Chevy, or that Skittles put a spotlight on a tool that could have been used in a way that wasn't controlled by the company.

But the key here is that these are things that are being said anyway.  The social media tools are an enabler.  But not in the way that a CMO thinks.  They are enabling tools to now bring those conversations in front of the company and allows them to engage and better the situation where they were helpless before.  What's even more interesting is that recent studies show that the more adept at technology and the more comfortable a person is with consuming digital media, the broader their opinion spectrum and the more likely to be aware of all sides of an issue.

Any good PR pro will tell you that the more info you can give a reporter on a story, the more likely you are to show them your side of the story and can get a more balanced story.  The same applies here.  The more info a company can get out there, the more engaged they are with the medium, and the more they meld into the brand's conversation, the better chances they have of getting a fair and balanced brand perception.

So, social media does not hijack a brand, but it is an enabler.  It enables the company to find the hot spots, engage and balance the conversation.  At least, that's one opinion.  Do you feel that the tools allow sophisticated users to hijack a brand?  Who do you think has the power in the negotiation of who owns a brand--the company or the mass audience?

Can Social Media Solve the Global Economic Crisis?

Probably not.  But my theory is that it can certainly help us avoid another one.  Or at the very least solve a lot of frustration with corporate communications.  What follows are some random thoughts that I tried to string together into a coherent piece.  I'd love to get your feedback.

Let's start with Seth Godin.  He did a piece on "The difference between PR and publicity."  In short:

"Publicity is the act of getting ink. Publicity is getting unpaid media to pay attention, write you up, point to you, run a picture, make a commotion. Sometimes publicity is helpful, and good publicity is always good for your ego.

But it's not PR."

Unfortunately, PR has become this:

But PR became that because of a belief (their belief) that people didn't want or "couldn't handle" the truth.  (Thank you, Jack [Nicholson]).  It became spin, double talk, euphemisms, and in some cases, just plain untrue.  Firings and layoffs became "right sizing," whistle-blowers were hustled out of town, and CEOs went on CNBC and lied about their companies financial health.

And that brings us to Jon Stewart.  If you didn't see his interview with Jim Cramer, you can see it uncut here.  At the heart of the 3 part interview is Jon Stewart criticizing CNBC (and all financial journalists) for blindly airing, or even promoting the false statements and reports of these failing companies and institutions.  Jim Cramer defends by saying that they were lied to by these executives and apologized for not looking into it further.

And that's where I thought there was one piece missing.  The debate this morning on the blogs, the Diane Rehm show and in a lot of the 24 hour cable media is focused on how the executives lied, how the journalists were duped, and how do we bring accountability into this.  But one piece that I see missing in all of these debates is the corporate communications people, the publicity people, the PR firms.  Don't forget that when the companies are going on these shows, that lady in the Apple clip above is right there in the wings telling you what to say.  And usually, it's a lot like what she does in that clip -- hide the real problem with misleading language.

The problem in this case was that it wasn't trying to peddle more sales, subscriptions, or sweep under the rug some bad decision behavior by corporate executives.  This time it was playing with other peoples' money.  Their retirement.

So what does this have to do with social media?  Well, if we go back to the roots of this, it was a backlash to "corporate speak."  It was a backlash formed by knowing that what you read on the corporate web site is hyper-inflated, meaningless content.  The real trust was being put into word of mouth, into what their peer group thought, and into comments found through the new publishing tools afforded to us all with the Web 2.0 movement.  It was a collective upheaval of that PR lady in the Apple commercial.

Now, with a lot of people paying attention to social media now, and a few actually getting that it goes beyond just using the tools and really incorporating values like transparency, authenticity, and avoiding meaningless "corporate speak," perhaps... just perhaps... these corporate communicators, publicity firms, and quasi-PR agencies will begin to move towards the values upheld by social media and in such demand by the general public.  Maybe public relations will become what it could be.  And perhaps we can begin to trust the media and its journalists again.

There are Robots Amongst Us

Recently, there was some debate that was generated about an earlier post regarding authenticity and how marketers can "use" this expected standard in the online/social world.  The two sides of the coin were:

1. Social media IS authenticity.  It is not a tactic, nor a tool to be used by some marketer in a non-authentic fake stab at trying to be authentic.  Regardless of the language used, the ideals of the social media channels should not be compromised in marketing language to get the point across.  Faking it is faking it.

2. It is understood that social media is authentic.  But rather, in discussions with CMOs and communications professionals, the topic of authenticity needs to come up.  And in speaking with them, to convince them of the benefits of breaking from corporate speak, point out that authenticity is a way of doing business, a way of communicating that will actually drive adoption and loyalty to their brand/message/cause.  However, make sure that you don't fake it.

Which brings me back to robots.  I was on Twitter debating one of the perspectives with @amoyal when he replied:

"amoyal @vanceOpel your customers are humans though not robots Authenticity shouldn't have to be explained in these terms"

Well, that's just it.  That's the point of the robots on my Twitter page, and the soon-to-be-launched Elasticity Web site.  We're not quite sure who are humans and who are robots in our daily lives (business or otherwise).

How many people do you know that simply "follow protocol?"  That find it difficult to break out of the rules or "think on their feet?"  How many agencies put together the same formula for each of their new business presentations?  How many corporate marketers say "think outside the box," and then stick to what has always been done in the past?  How many customer service reps have you dealt with that simply follow their script and never actually help you?   I could go on and on...

The Cluetrain Manifesto puts it this way:

"Whether explaining or complaining, joking or serious, the human voice is unmistakably genuine. It can't be faked.  Most corporations, on the other hand, only know how to talk in the soothing, humorless monotone of the mission statement, marketing brochure, and your-call-is-important-to-us busy signal. Same old tone, same old lies."

There has been slow change since that book came out years ago.  We know that we're in a revolution that is changing all of that, and that is the mission of our new agency: Elasticity.  That is the point of the robots.  We are on a mission to humanize the robots hidden amongst us.  Or at the very least, to reveal those robots so that we can avoid them and simplify our lives wherever we can.

Sterile happytalk insults the intelligence of markets too smart to buy it.  "Corporate firewalls have kept smart employees in and smart markets out."  This year is going to be the tipping point for social media.  Look to see the hulking masses of these tiresome robot skins piling up in the streets as the humans inside these companies and agencies shed them in huge numbers.  We hope to be a big catalyst in that effort.

Photo credit: Flickr- Neato Coolville

Why Can't Marketers Accept Authenticity?

 

We've been at this social media stuff for a little while now and we've seen some changes over the past couple of years.  Companies have moved from a curiosity of the attention is has gathered, to a genuine wanting to learn, to now a tepid "dip the toe in" approach to trying it out.  And this is definitely a normal cycle to getting into something that is new and unfamiliar.

However, it still surprises me to see the marketing person in the room systematically dismiss the power of authenticity as a marketing tactic.  That is not to say that they are against social media, or utilizing any of the tools that are available to us in this space.  It's just that they are more comfortable to move the discussion around these programs as a "customer care" issue or a corporate communications issue.  As a legitimate marketing tool, the discussion begins to take an odd turn.

Our question is... why?

There is no doubt that these tools help with reputation and customer good will.  The difference is that those are marketing tools as well.  Marketing is a communication of value to the audience.  And in that vein, marketing can move beyond a communication of value to actually bringing value to that same audience.  In an article in Entrepreneur, they talk about something we have been educating in social media for a long time now: "People love being heard and feeling that someone cares."  Though their article is advocating for customer service as a marketing tactic, the lessons still apply to social media.  Engaging people in the brand and letting them know they are valuable brings a loyalty that other marketing messages can't match.

So back to the question of why...

Though there are a myriad of reasons (we're sure), one theory is the question of the return on investment (ROI).  Marketing has definitely worked out a great model for known tools such as direct mail, print advertising and the like.  However, social media doesn't present as simple of a model.  It reminds us of the question of ROI with regards to PR.  A lot of PR practitioners would avoid the ROI conversation at all costs stating why it goes beyond impressions, and why impressions don't have an intrinsic value.  Yet when P&G came out with their study that showed PR had a higher return than advertising, it suddenly was en vogue to discuss (even without the real details or statistical modeling behind it).

We believe that PR was more complicated because of brand PR, reputation management, grassroots, analyst relations, etc.  But there is a model--ask P&G.  And there is a model for social media as well.

Right now you can read/see/hear any number of reasons why you can't (and shouldn't) look to prove a return on investment.  Harvard Business School associate professor Andy McAfee says: "There is not enough ROI for figuring out ROI.  it is an intellectually bankrupt exercise."  Essentially saying that marketing is tough to measure in a vacuum.  It's financial outcomes come through a chain of cause and effect relationships.  Jason Falls says that "The problem with trying to determine ROI for social media is you are trying to put numeric quantities around human interactions and conversations, which are not quantifiable."

But we definitely have been working on a model that can help.  As discussed in a previous post here we thought that validating social media measurement was important to getting the attention of the hard-core marketing research folks.  Perhaps this model can do just that.  And perhaps, that will get more marketers to engage in the authenticity conversation as a marketing tool and not a customer relations tactic.  Perhaps you can put a numeric quantity on human interaction.  The sales profession has had statistics that show the increase in likelihood of a sale based on how many times they "touch" a customer, the wine industry says a customer is 80% more likely to buy a bottle of wine once they've pulled it from the shelf.  Companies have monetized lead loss generation when negative postings hit the first page of Google, and so on.

So social media needs a model.  We can't continue to blog our way out of coming up with this model, and we have to respectfully disagree with  Andy McAfee.  We think that the person that comes up with a way to show real impact to the financial bottom line using social media (in this economy) is going to find that their time was well spent.  They just might have to look at all the points along the cause-effect relationships.

Now, does anyone have the formula for authenticity and trust?

(Photo Credit: Felix Heinen)