It is rare to see a news article about social marketing (as opposed to the few that cover social marketing programs). And speaking from recent experience, even rarer when the reporter actually talks to social marketers and not economists. So I was very interested to see how interviews I and a few other social marketers turned out in the Washington Business Journal.
The first challenge was finding a copy of the paper; which I never did. Going online, the WBJ only shows the first graphs and then asks for a $98 annual subscription fee to continue (well, not THAT interested!). Then I found that the article has been syndicated in the South Florida Business Journal, and, you guessed it, they offered free access. [That's a bitch. I go back tonight to make the link for you and they have shut off access to it too. Fortunately I printed it off yesterday. SO you'll have to trust me on the rest from here.]
I started reading the article...profile of the Save the Crabs, Then Eat 'Em program in the first three graphs. And then the kvetching began - by the other social marketers! I should have suspected as much from the headline: Selling bitter medicine.
The problem that social marketing has is that our behavior and products are always the crummier ones...
It's a lot easier to describe what an iPhone does than it is to describe why you should tolerate other groups...You're dealing with intangibles.
Given the challenges, there are teeny budgets. Gillette gets a billion dollars to present a new razor and somebody has to prevent AIDS with a budget of $500,000.
Sandwiched between the program and these quotes was my rhapsodizing on the potential of new media and mobile technologies for reaching new audiences and facilitating behavior change; but nothing new there.
The brand manager, public relations counsel and/or CEO of Social Marketing Inc would apoplectic (or at least dyspeptic) over some of these comments. Let alone what the customers and shareholders (should) be thinking: you get a chance to tell our story and this is what comes out?
What about the behavior changes that do occur? And most commercial marketers I know who have migrated to social marketing have done so because they think these are the most important and inspiring behaviors and products to work on.
Beyond confusing product attributes and product benefits - and trying to compare the two, don't tell most commercial marketers that they have the easier job - especially when their competitors are really out to eat their lunch! When you deal with brands, it's always about intangibles - and getting that right is something most companies don't do easily either.
Marketing success is not a linear relationship to marketing expenditures. And that goes for social marketing projects too. Just check out the annual marketing budgets of some of the top 10 brands - Heinz ketchup clocks in at $413,800! Nope. The key to success is the amount of cognitive effort that goes into any good (social) marketing program - that includes research, strategy, creative and execution.
We all can appreciate the frustrations and concerns that drive this type of talking. And it's been a conversation that's been going on among social marketers for quite a long time now. When talking with the public however, get over it!
I can't believe the time has come to have to suggest that we need to issue some talking points for spokespeople on what to say about social marketing. Here's my starting suggestion:
Principles #1, #2 & #3: Focus on the benefits.
I'd like to hear what some of your talking points are.
With friends like this...
Comments