Social Media is Serious Business
Speaking at the Florida Public Relations Association 72nd Annual Conference was such a great experience for me. I enjoyed presenting PR Revolution: From PR Past to Hybrid Power, which was received with open arms. After my keynote, one topic of discussion I found extremely interesting surfaced during a Q&A session with the senior counselors. The topic: does the name “social” media automatically create a false impression in the minds of the C-level and senior executives as just “chatting” or “socializing.” Does the name social media convey this message: social media is serious business.
Here’s my quick take on a name. Years ago, my mother told me that she had a couple of names in mind for me before I was born. When she went over her top picks with me, I turned my nose up at her alternative choices. Each one came with an image attached to it. When she unveiled the first one, I immediately thought, “Well that would have made me sound old before my time and from the 1940s.” The second name she considered would have been tough for a little kid. I would have been teased for my entire childhood. It was one of those rhyming names. I’m happy that she and my dad selected the name I have today.
Do certain names give you a mental, predisposed image of what something should be based on your perceptions? After all, companies spend millions of dollars on building their brands (names, experiences and brand promises). So, when we introduce social media for the first time to the higher ups in our organizations, and they hear the word “social” do they resist because they think it is “one big cocktail party.” I don’t have the answer but it would be an extremely interesting study. However, I do know that a name can sound fun, social, serious, smart, etc. So, what would happen if we went to all of our executives before they heard of this phenomenon called social media and said, “We need you to consider a program in Strategic Digital Media because it has a tremendous impact on our business and our competitors are increasing their market share and chipping away at our profits?
I’ll answer my own question. They would have said, what is this Strategic Digital Media, how does it affect my bottom line and how does this make our shareholders happy? They would not have said, “Is this going to cut down on employee productivity and does this mean employees are going to be checking their personal Facebook pages all day?” Of course, regardless of the name, you definitely need to do your homework and educate your executives. But, is the negative reaction and hesitation that many communications professionals face, due to a misperception of the name? Could it be the way “social” is perceived?
Another quick example I can share. When recently working with a client, we were tossing around hashtag names for a Twitter discussion. One suggestion was the initials of the organization and the word “social” attached to it. So for instance it would be something like #XYZSocial. The response to the team was…this makes it seem like it’s one big party. And, you know what…in a way it does.
Maybe we have spent past years viewing “social” as personal and party conversations. But today, social media is so much more than your party talk; it’s moving markets, creating business and generating ROI. So the question is: Do we keep educating on Social Media or is there another name? Would Strategic Digital Media have been a better choice? What do you think? Can we get past a name?
August 13, 2010 @ 9:14 am
Loved this and YES I do think the word “social” detracts from the serious potential this new medium offers. I never really thought about it though until reading your post, so bravo. I will need to modify the way I market my services from here on out.
August 13, 2010 @ 9:18 am
One of the things I try and explain to clients is that social media isn’t a ‘new extra’. It can be, but that misses the point.
It’s a tool that helps communication. Rather than thinking about what new work can be created and sent out using the work, it is a case of examining what messages need sending and how to streamline that communication process.
Why send out costly versions of newsletters when you can integrate the information on your blog and broadcast it on twitter . Why set up a costly call centre when your Twitter account can integrate this function. Why pay for expensive conference sharing software when you can use vimeo and flickr to share the valuable findings of an event.
Social Media is much more easy to understand if you explain how clients can save time and money rather than sell a ‘new silver bullet’.
August 13, 2010 @ 10:27 am
I favor Networked Communications, for all the same reasons you outline. I think “social media” is a misnomer that creates unfortunate mental imagery.
August 13, 2010 @ 10:29 am
I think there is something in a name – but then executives by and large tend to be the last to adopt anyway! There is a majority of senior management where I work who see videoconferencing as some newfangled time waster, never mind relatively new things like Twitter… I remember having team meetings by videoconference back in 2000, between Brisbane Australia and Hong Kong. That’s at least a decade of lag they’re grappling with!
At about the same time I had been using instant messaging for a few years as a productivity tool (I was a software developer) – and it was great for that. There are still many workplaces that see instant messaging and more sophisticated collaboration tools as time wasters, toys and so on – and those tools have serious, business-y sounding names like webex, sametime etc.
So I think we have to get past a name, because the name itself is insufficient to sway those who can’t see the benefit and the opportunity. Perhaps there are some who’d perceive social media differently if it were introduced to them differently – but the issue’s still not in the name, it’s in their understanding of what it can do for them.
August 13, 2010 @ 10:49 am
I think the hurdle to overcome is the perception of what the services are vs. the reality of what they can mean for a business. One of the most common complaints I hear from non-SM users (like many executives who make the business decisions) is that they don’t want to hear “what someone ate for lunch” or “what they saw at the movies” or that “the party was so awesome”. Certainly there is a lot that, but what is less obvious is that within those minutia are clues to the audience’s tastes, habits and influences, what the competition is doing and related events for new opportunities of exposure.
August 13, 2010 @ 3:19 pm
Great post– as always, you pose a thought-provoking question! It seems every practice goes through a growing pain like this and needs to address its perceptions. A re-phrase might soften the perception but shouldn’t downplay the importance social media plays in providing opportunities to connect with customers or stakeholders, something every company needs to recognize.
August 13, 2010 @ 4:30 pm
We’re starting to refer to it as digital communications – incorporates more than just the social sites that way.
August 13, 2010 @ 5:56 pm
Hi Deborah! Thanks so much for the great feedback on the post. I agree, there is serious potential for businesses who engage in social media (the right way). However, if executives don’t take the time to understand the potential or make the commitment, because of a false impression, this is such a disservice to the brand.
August 13, 2010 @ 6:12 pm
Hi Krista! Thanks for sharing your insight on the topic. I definitely think we have to present social media the right way and soften the negative “social” perception. If we focus on how social communication leads to great opportunities with customers and other stakeholders, our brands will be more apt to engage. Changing the perception with words including strategy, collaboration, relationships, and value need to be included in the introduction. Of course, we must show the proof, which goes a long way. Have a great weekend 🙂
August 13, 2010 @ 6:14 pm
Hey Abbie…I think that’s a good approach! Thanks for sharing.
August 13, 2010 @ 6:16 pm
Hi Mike! You make an excellent point. If you can filter out all of the noise there are some real gems of information for the brand. Thanks for sharing your insight.
August 13, 2010 @ 6:23 pm
Hi James! You offer excellent insight. A name is a name, and we will always have those who just don’t buy in. Perhaps, it’s more about change than anything else. Change is tough for many, even if the name is serious, strategic and sounds like business. It’s all in the proof and if we can show value then it won’t matter if it’s social media, digital media, strategic media, etc. Thanks so much for your comments.
August 13, 2010 @ 6:24 pm
Hey Steve 🙂 I’m hearing from more people that they are using networked communications (showing that connection and collaboration). Has the the shift in the name made it any easier when discussing social media and business? Thanks for sharing!
August 13, 2010 @ 6:26 pm
Hey Thomas, I like your approach because you are focusing on how to save money yet make excellent connections in less time. Great insight! Thanks for sharing 🙂
February 22, 2011 @ 5:12 pm
Nice considerations but in my opinion everything depends by the country. In some country Facebook is only a waste of time and nobody use and understand Twitter. Social Media is a business if you can really reach people in that specific Social Media.