here’s the thing. an impactful campaign needs several things. first and foremost it needs a resonant message/value/substance. then it needs a destination where that substance is aggregated and deep, then it needs to draw attention to those things, while enabling someone to engage, stay engaged and engage others. in other words, social marketing is a variant of marketing, and all the tools need to be coherently orchestrated to create value and make a difference in the market.

There are cases where a company’s target audience may not necessarily desire long term engagement per se. And in those cases, paid amplification of earned media (especially earned media, not owned media) can be extremely effective in reaching those people. 

This is especially the case when a company needs a high impact result with a very specific audience within a narrow time window. Say, reaching institutional investors around a major corporate event – M&A, earnings, crises, etc.

B2B companies should be looking at this trend closely since not all corporate stakeholders want the kind of engagement-heavy relationship we in the industry typically ascribe to consumers and brands. 

Interesting post and comment thread, Jeremiah. Thanks for sparking the conversation.

Erik, I think you’re right that the original social agencies were in fact dressed up PR firms, but the current breed of social agencies are creating story and emotional engagement, and that doesn’t necessarily mean through heartwarming images and soundtracks.  Having a breeding in creative is not a prerequisite to successful engagement.  Just think of Pixar and all the early knocks against them not understanding “story arc,” and being a bunch of computer nerds, yet they produced a series of smart, funny and engaging stories.

I think the real value in either the social or digital agency is one that truly understands the social consumer, the social ecosystem, and is agile enough to partner and/or execute on the digital development, creative, and activation/media fronts.  In short, where I see the void in all of the millions of digital and social campaigns, is absolutely missing the mark in terms of voice and audience, and really connecting with the end user.  This could mean so many things from creative, to content, to simply creating utility that puts a smile on ones face.  

With the growth of social media and social consumers, the margin of error is exponentially smaller, and brands and agencies are still turning out schlock like: “Your ten favorite memories of brand X.” only to get eviscerated by the response unless it’s Apple or LEGO, and everyone kow-tows to the social bait with heartwarming stories.

Have to agree with that 100%, Jeremiah.  Eventually, we will see the reemergence of simply AOR.  Look at what’s already happen on major networks like ABC, NBC, etc.  We’re already seeing sitcoms, reality shows and completion shows (#thevoice, for instance) integrating with Twitter and other networks while on the air. Now we’re starting to television advertising follow suit in terms of integration as well. Tools like Trendrr are giving agencies more tools to bridge the gap between the traditional media/advertising they are used to and online tactics.

What will be interesting to keep watch on is just how long it will take the ad agency industry to move back to the true one-stop-shops of a years back.

No surprise here. Because social agencies already have the expertise with and contacts (sales associates) at the social networks, it makes sense for them to drive the ad buy if they already handle the engagement campaigns, especially when ads and engagement posts may be one in the same. Social agencies are still agencies: They want to grow against competition and will go where the budgets take them.

I’m all for the purist social media philosophy but also live in the reality that social networks are capitalistic in nature. Facebook doesn’t WANT brands to do something cool and get 1 million Likes without advertising or they wouldn’t have a business model. If you want your message to get beyond your subscriber base of Likes (aka get new customers, leads, SOV, etc.), you have to advertise. All else equal, a brand that advertises will spread its message more quickly to more customers than the brand that doesn’t. It’s not coincidence that the top Facebook brands (Starbucks, Coke, Disney, major-label musicians) are the same brands that were at the top of commercial media pre-social. They have the budgets to stay that big regardless of the marketing medium of the day. SEM/SEO is an interesting channel to bring up comparatively. Search engines at least give you a chance to get great content front and center organically without having to earn or pay for a Like or follow in advance.

campaigns aren’t dead – they are just transformed. Rather than a hit and run, a campaign should be a chapter of an ongoing story. A campaign should be the result of stepping back and considering your customer experience journey (how people engage with you, become customers, and so on over time and according to their changing needs) and your message, and where/how people can engage with it. the Hit and Run is dead – probably – but if we think of campaign as a coordinated action to have an impact on the market, its not in the least bit dead.

Part of me is a purist that believes in the organic development of a community but I can see where a strategic approach to advertising can play a role in turbo-charging community growth. I emphasize the “strategic approach” because there have been enough examples of  ads backfiring.

Risk cannot be completely eliminated but advertising how a brand is giving back rather than what they have to sell will likely have a better, less risky payoff. 

I also think you make an interesting point where purists could still be outperformed by traditional ad agencies. Some stakeholders just down have the patience for long term community building. Perhaps a hybrid approach of organic growth complemented by advertising will do the trick.

Some agencies are trying to figure out where they can add value on the new Facebook due to limitations around apps and landing pages. Part of me thinks that this is just Facebook gearing up for their IPO and driving/forcing brands down the advertising chute. 

Agencies are also coming to terms with the limited contribution they can make with Twitter other than community management. They can’t sell custom apps or landing pages for Twitter which explains why some downplay the platform.

There are going to be interesting times ahead as the industry evolves.

This is a amazing post.Like those point.I think those right.

If  tied into your agency’s website and branding, is constricted and has little room to breathe and grow.

I guess it was only a matter of time till advertisements found their way into day to day tweets and Facebook shares. Let’s just hope it does not reduce the quality of content or become a concern such as comment spam on blogs.

Only if competence is then measured as technical capabilities.

I really appreciate that social media agencies (just like PR agencies) are a key component of the communications ecosystem. But to take it that level higher those companies will need to bolster their creative technology capabilities to really stand out. 

Great post. This is an eye opener for so many social media folks who view social media as mere PR and not as an advertising platform. For more please read this post by me on this link for how effective social media advertising can be from an efficacy standpoint of view as well as trust stand point of view http://t.co/Olc1qct4

Totally agree. And I’d even say if you are not in a state of bolstering your creative technology capabilities – then you are comfortable with cutting key ingredients to a recipe that’s growing in demand.

Yes indeed. The ad side of the industry wins because they will get the budgets. 

I won’t comment on our agencies but I can assure you that we work with different agencies, vendors, and consultancies for different efforts. 

Hi Jeremiah — We’re 8 years into the “term” social media and i believe it still means many things to many people.   I think what’s core going forward is the agency of the future (or today) has to be adept in socially-centric, data driven approaches.  This means being part technology company, part management consultancy (since effective social requires integration/collaboration/agility across the enterprise in ways that haven’t been done before),  and of course more traditional agency services. Paid, owned, earned is collapsing.  Best agencies will be “real time,” story tellers who can find insights in the noise and act on them more quickly than others for competitive advantage.   Is that social media?   Time will tell. I’ve advocated for removing the “social” but then that leaves “media agency” — and it’s certainly not that..   But until agencies see the full picture and have capabilities in them — as opposed to seeing social through the prism of a particular discipline — social agencies will continue to grow.  The internal change management capabilities will becoming increasingly important as well which falls out of traditional agency capabilities.