The Social Media Hustle
A lot of the recent Facebook “friend requests” I’ve received have been from folks hailing from intergalactic PR agencies … but not from the “traditional” side (they often assure me), but from these firms’ newly-formed “Social Media Divisions.”
I think it’s a mistake to separate your so-called Social Media specialists from the rest of your PR agency staffers. If anything it is more critical than ever for our industry to have a holistic perspective on the ever-more-incestuous interplay of Social Media and Mainstream Media.
I think most agency heads know this, by the way … which makes me sad, because it would mean that the so-called separation of disciplines is really a cynical marketing ploy. (Which would mean that PR pros would deserve the licking we’ve been getting with regard to being exploitive, blockheaded flacks.)
I asked my Twitter pals what they thought about this issue, a couple of weeks ago. Most tended to agree: the separation is wrong, and wrong-headed.
That doesn’t mean that there is no room for approaches other than the holistic way. For our part, we talk about Social Media principles all the time, across the agency. Additionally, we’ve got a “PR 2.0 Taskforce” comprised of folks who also work within “traditional” teams.
I see this “separation of powers” issue as a bit of a test for our industry. You can use the opportunity presented by Social Media to listen and interact and learn, or you can use the opportunity to hustle the uninitiated for more money.
The long-term winners will open their ears before they open their palms.
Subscribe by Email
Click here for my LinkedIn profile
Comments
Agree, wholeheartedly, Todd. Even if it means moving forward more slowly, we all move forward together or we all twist in the wind together.
We'll never get anywhere if we can't convince agency decision-makers that some of the "best of" SM can be incorporated into overall agency practice. Setting marginalized SM operations just to try to win some business in the short-term is short-sighted.
Posted by: Michael Tangeman | November 6, 2007 06:24 PM
The agency I work at consists of three people, and we're all in the social media division. :)
I find it works well to have every single "traditional" thought accompanied by gobs of "non-traditional" thoughts.
Posted by: Mike Keliher | November 6, 2007 10:43 PM
Hi Todd,
We've been having this spat in the UK. Ignore the petty responses but some good points made on either side.
http://notetoeditors.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/custard-tart/
Posted by: Tim Hoang | November 7, 2007 07:37 AM
It's critical that these practices are integrated because they support each other, in one combined effort to generate publicity.
Posted by: Dan Schawbel | November 7, 2007 09:38 AM
I just wrote a really great comment about how if you aren't creating different divisions for broadcast and print, you shouldn't do it for SCGM. But then I realized I think I'm wrong.
The fundamentals of SCGM campaigns are so completely different that I think there is a benefit to having a delineation on teams. Maybe not on an account management level but on the AE/pitching level I think there is a benefit to different people with a differing focuses. It's almost like one is wholesale PR (pitching traditional media) and one is retail PR (SCGM).
Just as with selling... well anything, selling to a professional purchaser versus an amateur end user requires not just a different skill set, but in many cases and different mindset.
I think properly there needs to be a meeting of the minds between the two teams in terms of messaging, but that traditional and SCGM should then break off and be pitched separately.
Posted by: Pete | November 7, 2007 11:43 PM
Separating the two reminds me of the early 1990's when some companies were doing the same with "traditional" media and "online" media. Separation leads to lack of coordination. It is all under the communications umbrella.
Posted by: Jennifer Massaro | November 9, 2007 02:12 AM
Sure, they should be completely integrated, but there are reasons that, particularly within the big agencies (like, say, Ogilvy), they are not: for marketing reasons and to allow for a pool of dedicated folks to strengthen an area of expertise and educate their peers throughout the agency.
On the marketing front, a "traditional" agency needs to broadcast to its clients -- current and those who are attracted to working with them -- that they have this area of expertise, that they can provide them with a one stop shop communications consultation, whereas they may have thought they needed to go elsewhere for advice on that wacky new thing called social media.
On the education front, our team (360 Digital Influence) within Ogilvy PR is working to train more people throughout the agency to understand social media strategy and to think about how it fits within what they are already doing with their clients. And it's working. We're a distinct team within the agency, but we collaborate and, from the client's perspective, what our team offers is seamless and integrated.
Those of us who know that it's not about the toys, but about the way to effectively communicate to customers and constituents, know that an understanding of social media strategy is a necessary expertise for any communications professional today worth a grain of salt, regardless of what "team" you're on.
Posted by: Alison Byrne Fields | November 10, 2007 04:07 PM
In my comment, I neglected to acknowledge that you said that the separation could be about a "cynical marketing ploy," when I, in fact, said that it could be justified, in part, as a marketing need.
But I don't understand why it's cynical to explain to clients that PR is not limited to media relations, which, unfortunately, many clients still believe.
Posted by: Alison Byrne Fields | November 10, 2007 04:13 PM