Why social media is like punk

I think I just found my new job title… Social Media Punk.

Great video and analogy!

User ID not verified.

Excellent analogy well put together, as per Zac’s comments. Unfortunately though, the same people who ignored punk – and rock and roll a decade before that – will continue to ignore SNM.

The dollar over the counter now has always been more important to the majority of “big” than engagement or relationship building.

User ID not verified.

Well done, good analogy…

User ID not verified.

LOVE IT

User ID not verified.

Why not also say punk is a noisy, (mostly unmemorable), low-quality, amateur medium that you can’t control? That sounds more like punk to me.

How about social media is like Sid Vicious’ bass playing = leaves a lot to be desired.

I think the larger issue CEOs have is they need better ideas from their agencies to justify the risk of going into social media in the first place. They are probably sick of hearing all the evangalising too. I know I am.

All this self-analysis and traditional-marketing-bashing of the last six months is all just a narcissistic gangbang for many in the digital industry.

User ID not verified.

pretty shitty analogy and the smug self important tone is getting tiring

feels weird to me a social media consultant is comparing social media to punk rock to effectively sell his services. i didn’t know that punk rock was about selling.

User ID not verified.

Ben Shepherd and Granleese, the two most cynical blokes in this space!

User ID not verified.

If punk were a genuine movement today, i wonder if they’d make a video comparing themselves to punk of the past?

Which assumes previous punk would never have existed i suppose so they’d have nothing to compare to…but still.

User ID not verified.

Gotta say I agree with Ben (Shepherd) and Granleese unfortunately. Lame and arrogant analogy.

I personally love social media (shudders at the title) however at the moment the social scene in Sydney is largely masturbatory, with few to no detailed case studies. People who think that “traditional media” (including digital banners etc) are actually dying and will be replaced by SM are kidding themselves. While I agree there is a growing argument for social media to play a role in overall communications strategies; the current holier than thou stance many in social take is completely unwarranted.

User ID not verified.

@ Joel Pearson

The point of this presentation and video is to get CEO’s and brands on board, and without them we have no case studies to build.

User ID not verified.

Fantastic. Great tool and sets out to do what it was intended to do – educate the tower about social media.

It’s what advice and strategic direction is given to the CEOs etc after that is the big issue I think. Is social media about pushing existing marketing strategies via a ‘new channel’ or is it about engaging and listening to your publics and using that insight to evolve the traditional strategies? The latter in my opinion…

User ID not verified.

I agree with Ben Shepherd. The simple fact is that for a marketer – client side – to attirbute budget to social media projects there have to be some iron-sights, some attributables and crucially some certainty around response, engagement and takeup. And generally, sadly, with social media, there just aren’t.

I’ve agencies claim/sell/promise the notion of ‘seeing a huge uptake in the blogosphere, and it’ll be great for your social profile’ but generally it doesn’t happen, the results don’t come in in the volumes that the client was assured, and the company doesn’t get the response the agency claimed.

Marketing, client side, has changed in recent years too. It has gotten a lot more stats based, ROI is king. I have mates in marketing for banks and they say they can’t even get campaigns off planning stage without knowing that they’ll turn a profit. Chance taking – extreme chance taking – is off the boil.

Large corporates hit by the financial crisis are less likely to try something new and ‘fun’, they want dependables, they want surity, they want to know that what they’re going to do will work so they can survive.

It would be a brave company, a brave ceo and a brave marketer to spend on a new and untested area during a time when profits and budgets are shrinking and if you make a wrong turn you’re out the door – and there’s 20 people eager to take your job.

Is it a flight to safety? Perhaps… but as Ben Shepherd says the self important tone is getting tiring – it seems to me, right now, the main people pushing companies to get into social media are those seeking to make a buck off what they’re pushing.

And that’s just not a risk many marketers will take at the moment.

User ID not verified.

Unfortunately this analogy doesn’t work for me at all, the punk movement was a protest against a failing government and the hopelessness of growing up in bankrupt Britain of the 70s. Social media is not a protest but simply an environment independent of direct outside influences where people can converse with others that share their interests, whatever they may be. The danger for brands is that they intrude uninvited into this space without making a valuable and appreciated contribution to it. A Doctor Who specialist retailer who is also an enthusiast selling the cheapest fandom products available might get away with it in a doctor who fansite/blog. Unless the information imparted enhances the other members lives it will be as popular and as relevant as a hot dog stand in Jerusalem

User ID not verified.

Some of the responses are quite amusing and show how some people entrenched in what they consider to be their vital role in the communications industries refuse to look beyond the only things they know.

No-one is saying social media is a replacement for any of the methods that have existed for centuries, simply that it is another tool that can be used to leverage results.

It’s very clear from comments such as “pretty shitty analogy”, “largely masturbatory”, and “narcissistic gangbang” how deeply entrenched in dusty, tired methods some people are. I image the same people have never heard of Google Analytics either.

The fact is, there is no shortage of excellent tools available to measure the effectiveness and immediacy of well implemented social marketing campaigns as for traditional methods. In fact, compared to traditional methods, the tools available are considerably better for measuring the ROI.

As is often the case when something new emerges, those who aren’t open to accepting change attack and condemn, while those who are see opportunity.

By even commenting on this forum the same critics are participating in the very thing they are criticising – which makes those who are unable to add comment without using vulgarities even sadder examples of the entrenched mindsets of some people who profess to be communications professionals.

Or perhaps the real answer is that these people just don’t understand how to generate billings from social media, or are afraid of venturing into an area where very performance can be measured much more precisely than in other methods.

The unwillingness to engage with consumers and see communications as a two-way street is exactly the reason why newspapers world-wide are closing in record numbers.

High time some people came down from their lofty towers and realised that the word communications means two way, not standing from the pulpit and sermonising to the masses.

User ID not verified.

Don’t get me wrong – I like social media and am aware of its contribution and potential.

it’s just the self referencing and smugness of the socmed cheerleaders. it makes the self congratulatory backslapping of the general ad/media industry seem entirely modest in comparison. what’s the bet there’s already a ‘social media awards’ ceremony in development concocted by some enterprising hip things. 😉

i’m not dismissive of what these new technologies can do to evolve the existing space, i’m just tired of the traditional media bashing and ‘change’ rhetoric.

User ID not verified.

john le fevre – how is the view from up there? 😉

please read what is being said. no one is bashing social media – they are bashing the misguided opinion of know-all douchebags who make up the majority of the ‘industry’ around it.

there is a difference.

User ID not verified.

“No-one is saying social media is a replacement for any of the methods that have existed for centuries, simply that it is another tool that can be used to leverage results.”

Well said, John – now if we can only get people who don’t understand that to listen.

User ID not verified.

Ben Shepherd, you just don’t get it at all, do you?

And it’s totally irrelevant whether you like social media or not. What were talking about here is a new weapon that’s been added to the those that weren’t available in the 70s, 80s and 90s.

I’m very proud of the fact that when I opened my agency in 1986 we did above and below the line work for our clients – PR and advertising (including creative and production) for some of the biggest names in the IT industry at the time and didn’t just limit ourselves to print, radio outdoor display and TV mediums.

I don’t see a single smug comment saying social media is a replacement for anything.

But I have noticed you’re unable to contribute to this discussion – a social media blog – without injecting your own level of obscenities into the discussion – probably just as well you don’t get it.

I can’t imagine any corporation wanting to pay someone to engage their customers with terms such as “douchebags” and “shitty”.

Then again, I do notice that you fail to provide any trackback to who you are, unlike the majority of other people who have contributed, which indicates that you might at least be aware that your comments are detrimental to your own professional standing.

And why should there not be awards for social media campaigns? Awards are purely the right of the PR or advertising industries?

Your responses read increasingly like someone who has no idea on what social media comprises or how it dovetails into traditional communications tools. It’s the same typical large PR or large ad agency approach that sees both sides of the communications mix fighting over the same bone like two old dogs.

I thought dinosaurs were extinct, but thank you for showing that not to be the case. 😉

User ID not verified.

This debate seems to be inspired by the Sex Pistols “album” ‘Flogging a Dead Horse’. I personally have an issue with the way punk is portrayed as a short term trend from yesteryear. The fact is that punk rock is as powerful and vibrant today as it was when Joe screamed ‘London’s Burning’. Punk was never about mowhawks and leather jackets. It was and is about ‘sticking it to the man’, about screaming injustice and objecting to the norm. So instead of focusing on the social media element to the video, grab a couple of old Clash albums – or download Gallows’ excellent 2009 album ‘Grey Britain’ and work up some anger. Then go into the CBD and smash up a couple of the banks before you find some white supremacists and kick their asses. THEN maybe you can talk about it on Twitter. (Please note: the author of this entry does not condone violence or damaging public property 😉 )

User ID not verified.

John you know a lot about me for someone who doesn’t know anything about me.

I’d love to stay and argue but I’m just so busy doing my exorbitant TV upfronts, checking the fax machine and trying to ignore the Internet I just don’t have the time

BTW I never said anyone expressed it was a replacement. My issue is with the tone but it’s pretty clear I just don’t get the Internet.

User ID not verified.

This is a great analogy for where social media is now.

However, from a client perspective what we really need is for social media to move from “Punk to Pink”.

Punk is agressive, on the fringes, niche and raw. Pink (the artist) is still edgy but more marketable, and sells a truckload of widgets. Optus knows this.

Some call it selling out. Others call it becoming successful or maturing.

As a former lead singer in a Punk band, if you want to make money (like most clients do), you dont invest in Punk, you invest in Pink.

User ID not verified.

@Le Fevre – we’re not tired, entrenched, dusty as you think (okay, I was on the beta release of Analytics too.. but who’s counting?)

I work for a full service agency, in probably one of the region’s best digital units, and I am just sick of you whinging party-pooper’s trying to preach to the converted with lame we’ve-heard-it-all-before-on-Seth’s-blog half-truths. Seriously, stop publishing this noise, it isn’t adding anything new to the debate.

Get off the bandwagon and stop ringing the bell. It hurts.

Most of your arguments are not true. Including the idea that newspapers are going out of business because of the internet. What a load of baloney. You think they are out of business because of a 2-3% downturn YoY? You clearly understand as much about media as I do about gynecology.. they are going out of business because most publicly owned are also highly geared and the earnings per (inflated) share are not high enough. Look at any privately owned print media business, they are doing fine.

User ID not verified.

Love the passionate discussion!! 🙂

I think there are some interesting points from both sides, but I think it’s also good to remember that bands like the Sex Pistols were manipulated by managers and record labels once the medium’s cache and potential was recognised. Malcolm McLaren is a good example of that…

It seems that many movements, no matter how radical or ‘outlier’ in nature, find their way to be leveraged and channeled for commercial purposes – even becoming a fashion statement (where is my PLO yashmag?, Che T-shirt?)…

I think that’s been happening for some time in social media and I think that an increasing number of businesses and CEOs are well aware of SM’s potential as a way to engage in 2-way conversations with their audiences.

So I’m pretty sure social media has well and truly passed it’s ‘punk’ use-by date and a functioning (perhaps more authentic) commercial channel already?

User ID not verified.

@Le Fevre

I’m not going to lie, I definitely don’t get the internet . In fact, to post this comment I tapped out a telegraph in morse code and had the person at the other end them mail the comment to someone else, who in turn faxed the message to someone else, that person then used the “internets” to post this response to you.

I’d like to write more but my finger is getting sore from tapping and I fear I have consumption from the damp in my dwellings and a small case of plague from this rat bite.

User ID not verified.

Some prescient (look it up) lyrics from The Clash song “Remote Control”:

Can’t make a noise
Can’t get no gear
Can’t make no money
Can’t get outta here

Big business it don’t like you
It don’t like the things you do
You got no money
So you got no power
They think you’re useless
An’ so you are – puuuuuuunnnnnk!

They had a meeting in Mayfair
They got you down an’
They wanna keep you there
It makes them worried
Their bank accounts
That’s all that matters
And you don’t count

Let’s face it – big business
don’t care about social media
cos it don’t really care
about punks or people

(That last bit is my own)

User ID not verified.

if social media is like punk, then i guess the social media strategy/evangelists/salespeople are like record labels and A&R”s trying to commercialise it ultimately for their own gain, no?

User ID not verified.

This video was only 2 minutes out of a 2.5 hour long presentation so actually – a nice way to introduce the topic. Which incidentally, wasn’t about debating the value of social media or its longevity or its future or how it fits with media in general…

The topic: Today, there are billions of web sites created by activists, detractors, gurus and Internet pundits. Stakeholders now have the power to immediately influence mainstream media and corporate reputations. Why then are so many corporate leaders reluctant to engage in online reputation management? Is social media’s inherent transparency compatible with or desirable for CEOs and their board-level responsibilities?

This session explored:

Social media’s impact on brand and business reputations

Reasons why James Grunig’s theory of two-way symmetrical communication is difficult for corporations to implement

Ways that Web 2.0 tools and techniques can equip you to respond to and recover from online negativity and criticism

Gerry McCusker is the author of the provocative text, Public Relations Disasters. He is an active blogger and experienced public relations creative, strategist and trainer. McCusker has almost 25 years of experience helping a diverse array of companies engage with their audiences.

Incidentally, the IABC Conference (and hence this audience) would have attracted internal comms professionals. Not CEOs or PR / digital agencies…

Just thought some perspective may help put this video in context. It was a way to break up the presentation, make it more colourful and interesting and help make a very important and valid point in a creative way.

To Gerry’s PR who placed this – next time – put your video in context. You almost started a war and you’ve stressed out Granleese, who happens to be from the region’s best digital unit. So Australia needs him/her. If Gerry placed this – you need PR – contact Granleese. If it was the IABC’s doing, nice work. All publicity is good publicity (not). And if MumBurrows dug this up himself, as usual, you sure know how to sniff out a fire starter!!!

User ID not verified.

Wow, some very passionate comments on here! Now, sorry for the following novel…..(no offence intended to anyone who might draw any reference to them)

OK, admirable effort on the video. However, whilst I get the intention of the video I don’t think the video (without context but even then?) is going to ‘convince’ any organisations, businesses, enterprises or government departments to invest with agencies spruiking their ‘social media’ credentials. The majority of people I listen to promoting SMM or SIM (social influence marketing) credentials really don’t understand it. They just simply rehash stats and facts about Twitter, Facebook, MySpace and lots of other facts & figures or highlight someone else’s case study.

But how many of these so called SMM / SIM evangelists or agencies have really worked it out end-to-end from an integrated marketing perspective vs just pushing a company to have a Twitter account or Facebook page as part of their ‘campaign’ because it’s the newest ‘bright shiny object’?

One of my favourites blog posts is this, ‘You’re not a social media expert, you idiot!’ http://openpresswire.com/twitt.....you-idiot/

I was tempted to label the various players in Australia according to the types outlined in the blog post I have mentioned above but I will get into too much trouble!

I work in this space on a global level and have been discussing, educating, defining, operationalising and executing social influence marketing for almost three years but importantly pushing and practicing the principles of the Cluetrain throughout all my marketing for the past 8 years.

All I see so far is lots of people pushing movements, clubs and cults and nobody focusing on the behavioural attributes of why information democracy is changing some of the rules of marketing and media.

The core principles behind this change in customer and consumer behaviour is the rise of information democracy:

From information asymmetry…
Information was scarce
Customers will ill-informed
Exchanges were monologues
Marketing was “command-and-control”

To information democracy…
Information is ubiquitous
Customers are well informed
Exchanges are conversations
Marketing is now “connect-and-collaborate”

The first questions I will be asking any agency pitching credentials to me would be related to much of the information in this post. So far I haven’t seen anyone get it, to the point we have had to educate our agencies and demand overseas specialists with experience be seconded here for 1 year to help.

Most importantly how many of these experts have written SMM or SIM playbooks, guidelines & policies? How many have outlined the clear roles & responsibilities required to invest in, operationalise, experiment and measure SMM or SIM? How many have developed workflows and studied and analysed the technology literacy of their target audiences? How many have benchmarked the conversation prism around their brands or products and determined what their share of voice is and what sentiment exists around them BEFORE they have pushed channels or tactics or ideas? Who does what and how – the marketing team, the agency, PR, customer service etc?

The first thing I did with my global colleagues a few years ago was to just simply define what digital marketing was and therefore what social influence marketing was and what impact it would have on our company. If your company, client or agency doesn’t truly get what it will mean for your company or industry and importantly your customer then you are headed for failure. It is not about the latest shiny object or goldrush.

The best way for me to articulate the point of my comments on here is a great blog post written by David Armano which I use in a slightly modified way as a team manifesto to bring my marketing team back to reality occasionally – The Wheel of Marketing Misfortune – http://darmano.typepad.com/log.....-whee.html

The two striking but no less or more important components are:

Social Media Goldrush
Shiny Object Syndrome

Now, the most ironic part of all this for me is that the Cluetrain Manifesto was written way back in 1999 and yet many agencies and marketers are only now coming into the frame. The principles and benefits associated behind the Cluetrain – marketing (because of digital impact) now being a dialogue vs a monologue has been sitting there for 10 years.

Where have you been for the last 10 years? Why are you only now rolling across the plains of the media landscape seeking your riches and fortunes in the social media goldrush? Why are people trying to overly simplify and characterise it as a niche or a movement?

Sadly marketers and agencies today have moved so far away from the core principles of integrated marketing that they forget the fundamentals which have never changed. I refer to knowing your customer & audience, understanding their behavioural attributes, strategy and analytics etc.

I have been work on educating federal and state governments and some of Australia’s largest companies around digital marketing, digital engagement and social influence marketing and it has been an interesting journey. I actually got called by a media advisor from a federal senator’s office saying they needed help to convince the senator to create a Facebook page! My first question was why!?

I have also talked about this ad nauseam – Social Media is a commitment, not a campaign. That is not to say you cannot run campaigns as part of a social media marketing program but I have not yet seen a single agency or marketer focusing on the strategic attributes which ensure success.

At a global level our playbook is based on the simple but very sound principles of the Forrester P.O.S.T. methodology:

People – review the Social Technographics profile of your customers
Objectives – Decide what your goals and objectives are. Is your objective; Listening, Talking, Energising, Spreading, Supporting, Embracing, Managing or Social Impact?
Strategy – Determine how your objectives will change relationships with your customers.
Technology – Then you choose the appropriate technologies to deploy, ie. Blog, RSS, community, product reviews, UGC, Twitter etc.

I see tons of agencies and marketers simply asking to see case studies and the latest reach stats and facts about Twitter or Facebook, but nothing about research, strategies, playbooks, measurement, policies, guidelines, roles & responsibilities, workflow or user generated comment decision response trees etc.

Anyway i could go on and on! You cannot simply ask a company, organisation, business or government department to relinquish control (a fundamental principle of Cluetrain) without having thought through the strategy, risks and appropriateness of the tactics and technologies to your customer / audience and what importantly what people, infrastructure, policies, guidelines and resources you will need to commit to the program.

User ID not verified.

P.S. If you want a great and clear explanation of the Transformed Media Landscape, watch this great video from TED – bit.ly/AKBFc

Ironically (Iran election) it was filmed in May but just post online 48 hours ago!

User ID not verified.

I obviously missed the post where we all asked for a manual on social media.

That aside, every man and his dog has created a social procedures manual and formulated some system for measuring sentiment.

Digital advertising is the most measurable of all and client’s won’t move past that (not saying that’s a good thing) – so why would they for social media? Any client that is jumping into social media tactics without a strategy, without measurement, without a risk management strategy and without sufficient technology is working with a dud agency (or none at all).

User ID not verified.

To Amused:

Geez there are some angry people on here. Next time I won’t bother sharing any insight or even commenting. I didn’t know that everybody in Australia is already an expert in social media, my mistake!

Your statement (every man and his dog has created social procedures manuals) contradicts the reality that 99.8% of everbody I have spoken to over the past 8 months, and that is a lot, haven’t. These are both small, medium and large organisations, government and agencies in Australia. I could name everyone of them on here but that is not the point or fair. FYI, we even had one agency telling an internal marketer that they should implement a particular tactic which in fact was astroturfing and the agency hadn’t even heard of the term.

There are lots of reports like this around backing up my personal experience – bit.ly/Xd4ck My experience is a lot worse here so the UK stats are actually good! And if people think that agencies are better, or are at the forefront of SMM compared to marketers at large global companies I will challenge the premise.

I will debate you on your comment about digital advertising is the most measurable. It might in theory be the ‘most measurable’ but almost all marketers and agencies are measuring the wrong thing. They are measuring things like reach, clicks for display ads and other meaningless KPI’s but not engagement. They are also giving almost all post click attribution to search which is also wrong. Here is just one whitepaper / report about Online Advertising – bit.ly/18Exp8 There are many others. The point is, that sensible statements like yours about theory are not the practical reality on the ground in Australia.

I was at a recent international IAB forum and the reality of digital measurement is also far from the intent. There have been some good international reports outlining that marketers want more data and measurement capability (particularly around SMM) but admit that they fully utilise less than 32% of their existing data, they don’t use it systematically and importantly they don’t have the internal expertise to develop measurement strategies and do analysis.

For almost every one company, organisation or agency I have spoken to or worked with, their definition of strategy is a tactic and not one of them is measuring sentiment, share of voice, volume of posts, domain volume, author volume or topic comparisons etc.

User ID not verified.

Ok, first up, love the discussion, but to summarise two days of good debate here’s where we now stand:

Some people here think that using the ‘social media is like punk’ analogy is correct, although others don’t think so at all.

Some feel that others are only pushing their own barrow, and their tone is getting dull, although others passionately disagree and that the discussion hasn’t progressed enough.

Everyone here is an expert on social media, the internet and marketing – including those who’ve used their titles, or alluded to them – but regardless of all the experts being in the room no one can quite agree on what social media is.

Social media may or may not constitute the following channels: facebook, blogs, twitter, myspace, youtube or any other platform that allows people to have a discussion with people who may already be, or may in the future engage with their product, or maybe not.

Somewhere between everybody, a dog and nobody on the client or agency sides of the debate has written either, none, one or severall process documents about how to implement social media practices. But if you have apparently no one wants a lecture about it, so you know, don’t get too involved.

Client side marketers are either asking for too much information and statistics, some information and statistics or no information and statistics and in some cases it doesn’t matter what they’re asking for because apparently they’re not using the information they already have and regarding the stuff they are asking for about social media it’s wrong anyway.

And to top it off we’re all not sure if the reference of ‘punk’ is about The Clash, The Sex Pistols or Pink.

Awesome.

With all this clarity I can’t imagine why CEO’s, upper management and marketers are confused about what social networking is and why agencies want them to get involved….

*grin*

User ID not verified.

slight correction: final par should have said ‘ social media’ not social networking, but you get the gist.

User ID not verified.

Hi Rowan,

Thanks for your cordial and professional comment!

There is no magic sauce or secret to social media or social influence marketing. I define social media quite simply and so do most of the marketing / digital marketing professionals I know:

Social media is people having conversations online.

Or a slightly more articulated version:

Social media is an umbrella term that defines the various activities that integrate technology, social interaction, and the construction of words, pictures, videos and audio.

Cheers….

User ID not verified.

Thanks for your contribution Granleese. Lets see, analytics was launched in 2005 so that’s hardly impressive.
No one here is preaching to the converted, it’s supposed to be a discussion about how social media fits and the benefits that can be gained from integrating it as part of a total communication strategy. As someone who claims to “work for a full service agency, in probably one of the region’s best digital units” I would have thought the “fit” would have been obvious. From having read your comments a couple of times I am left with the opinion that as a gynecologist you would probably make a pretty good proctologist.
From the thread above it seems when people spend their time attempting to provide some meat to the video – which is what this discussion is all about – there’s no shortage of people who definitely “don’t get it” and don’t understand the whole concept and who are more than ready to leap in and sledge those who attempt to offer guidance such as the detailed post from Martin.
At the end of the day there are plenty of people calling themselves experts when in fact they aren’t, and plenty of large private and government organizations who really don’t understand or comprehend the whole social media/SNM idea. What’s even sadder to see is the so-called “communications experts” and “professionals” racing in to poor cold water on the topic.
Chris Maloney makes a good point. Social media/SNM might appear to be in it’s infancy at the moment *in Australia* but in other markets it is already considerably refined.
The video clip attempted to outline what social media is about – consumers and end users seeking recognition and attempting to gain acknowledgment and yes, in some cases bring about change too. From that stand point alone the analogy is a good one.
Social media/SNM has always been around – think Town Hall meetings, user conferences, product/personal fan clubs, etc. It’s just that now it’s easier, more immediate and trackable.
What should have been a discussion that could have helped clarify, educate and helped some people has been hijacked by some whose intentions are rather unclear and very unprofessional.

User ID not verified.

Great analogy and video!
Wish I could have made it to San Fran to see the full presentation.
~LPT

User ID not verified.

When a PR company comes out with this stuff like this I want to reach for my sick bag…

I was a “punk” back in the 70s, 80s and saw bands like the Clash in their prime. I was involved in music, fanzines, squatting etc etc and in many ways social media chimes perfectly with this.

But what is missing from our PR tossers input here is that much of punk was anti-capital. Many gigs, concerts, labels were non-profit ventures, where things were done for the thrill not the bottom line.

This attempt to co-opt social media with a punk tie in (something 40+ execs will understand and identify with) should be shown the door and told to eff off. It’s a colonisation of the memory of punk by capital as thin and pathetic as U2’s attempts to pass themselves off as punks (I know people who used to go and watch U2 in their early days and they used to get bottled off cos they were so “unpunk”). And, if people like this PR tosser had shown up at punk concerts we’d have shown them the door – with our boots up their asses. We didn’t want anything whatsoever to do with CEOs, PRs or anything that smacked of corporations.

Social media works, for the moment, cos it is not co-opted. As soon as the big boys get in on the act it is over. This PR tosser is the thin end of the wedge. If anything it needs more attitude and more independence.

For me one of the REAL debates for social media is how standards as a news source can be improved. At the moment it is driven by rumour and a lack of critical thinking – playing into the hands of the rich and powerful. At this point WE need to keep THEM – the rich, powerful and elites – out of it. As soon as they move in social media will cease to be as open, diverse and vibrant. And PR companies are corporate cock-suckers who are only interested in spin and cash.

User ID not verified.

Oh how I regret subscribing to the comments on this post.

It’s an analogy, which is meant to be a simple concept people can relate to, to understand something more concretely. It’s not meant to be perfect nor is any analogy going to work on every single angle you look at it. I don’t see anyone else with anything better to explain it to those CEO’s so they’ll actually listen…

User ID not verified.

@Zac Martin

But the whole point of punk was to tell the CEO’s to eff off – not get into bed with them.

Personally I have no interest at all in a CEO or their opinion. They already have far too much influence, power and money.

I’d actually be happier if CEOs remain terrified of social media and see it as something they can never control and never co-opt.

That would actually be more “punk”.

User ID not verified.

It’s an interesting analogy which was made in a documentary called Punk Attitude (highly recommended) – but here it was said (by an old punk, from memory) that the internet was punk. I thought it was a cool link and was going to write a blog post about it but I think I’ll pass now!

User ID not verified.

For people who seem to think that CEOs understand and/or even embrace the concept of SNM/SM this latest report from the US paints a totally different picture.

Research conducted by the blog UberCEO.com looked at Fortune’s 2009 list of the top 100 CEOs to determine how many were using Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Wikipedia, or had a blog — and found they were mostly absent from the rapidly growing social media community.

The study found only two CEOs had Twitter accounts and 81 percent of CEOs did not have a personal Facebook page.

Only 13 CEOs had profiles on the professional networking site LinkedIn. Three CEOs stood out with more than 80 connections but they were all from technology companies — Michael Dell from computer maker Dell Inc., Gregory Spierkel from technology products distributor Ingram Micro Inc., and John Chambers from Cisco Systems Ltd.

Three quarters of the CEOs did have some kind of Wikipedia entry, but nearly a third of those had limited or outdated information such as incorrect titles, or lacked sources.

Not one Fortune 100 CEO had a blog.

The full report can be found here:
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/art.....ook:-study

User ID not verified.

cool story john

User ID not verified.

@Le Fevre

Getting paid millions a year to run a company, maybe it is a good idea CEOs aren’t f–king around in Facebook or Twitter. Lets face it, maintaining social profiles/networks/conversations is time consuming and can affect your work productivity. See Doonesbury: http://images.ucomics.com/comi.....090624.gif

No one argues CEOs are not out of touch with SM. You’re preaching to the converted in a blog like Mumbrella. Maybe a more pertenant question is how else do you get senior executives to learn a medium that is best understood through trial and usage?

User ID not verified.

I also read that research the other day and whilst it is interesting insight it doesn’t mean organisations, enterprises or government don’t get it or are not embracing and investing in social influence marketing.

At least almost all the very major global companies are in social influence marketing (SIM) in some way albeit it they might not be executing fully baked social marketing programs yet but at least they are listening using TruCast, Radian6 and or Buzzmetrics etc.

Now, I will contradict the above by saying that if a CEO does not fully support the principles of digital marketing, ie. the world has moved from the old era of information asymmetry to information democracy then that can be a barrier to developing and successfully executing SIM programs. But, that doesn’t mean they have to be on Twitter, Facebook or have a blog.

There are already many case studies of companies which have attempted SIM programs and failed because they did not have the full support (relinquish control principles) of the CEO.

Microsoft is a case in point where there is no blog by the CEO but that does not mean that Microsoft is not executing strategic SIM programs. They are fully embracing SIM around Windows 7 and the Windows brand. There are many blogs by many employees and in most cases these are mid-level managers having open conversations with customers not senior execs or CEO’s.

Depending upon what your goals and objectives are, a blog by the CEO might not be a good tactic / technology to use. It all depends upon the technical profile (socialtechnographics profile) of your customers, what the issues / opportunities are and what your objective is etc.

The same can be said for CEO’s being on Twitter. Why should they? It all depends on your objectives. I am getting really tired of people saying that a company should be on Twitter or needs a Facebook page just because these channels exist. If a practitioner or CEO is not on Twitter or Facebook or does not have a blog this also doesn’t mean that ‘they don’t get social media’. Asking why company X or Y is not on these channels is not the right question to be asking and in no way infers whether a company ‘gets social media’.

As I stated previously, the key challenge to me is not walking in the door and pitching social media to CEO’s as channels or technologies where the company should be because ‘that is where the activity and reach is’. The key issue is more concerning in that marketers don’t yet understand that this is fundamental shift in customer behaviour, it occurred 2 years ago and it is not a recent fad. Then it is about changing the behaviour of well entrenched marketing practices and practitioners and introducing them to processes, training, analytics, playbooks, policies, roles & responsibilities specific to their company / organisation in a way they can understand and operationalise. You can then demonstrate the benefits of the channels and platforms through listening platforms like TruCast but this must be done again in context of their situation. I was recently approached by a very high level government office for advice on Social Influence Marketing as well as a few government departments and the appetite is there but the skills and insight to operationalize it aren’t and the agencies that have approached them generally have no clue as they only see SIM in the context of campaigns. In other words they don’t know enough to bring all of these disciplines together across SIM; PR, marketing, legal, sales, customer service, HR, product management and general management.

One final point, I was at a very high level roundtable including the heads of Australia’s largest online publishers and some of Australia’s largest companies and one company (to my disbelief) said that they are still only investing around 6% of their annual marketing budget on digital. So, I think there is still some way to go around integrated digital marketing in Australia let alone SIM in isolation.

User ID not verified.

@Granleese

Agreed that most CEOs don’t have time to tweet or maintain Facebook pages but failing to create and/or update professional social media references such as LinkedIn or Wiki entries is not excusable.

After all, the information required to keep these entries current would be part of most press releases announcing a senior executives appointment, an annual report or other such document and take a very short amount of time to copy and paste.

When the results from the US are put next to:

“But in Australia, journo-tweeting is largely unregulated by media outlets. None of the 25 Australian journalists I interviewed for this study (from Fairfax, News Ltd, ABC, ACP, Sky News and a range of smaller outlets) was aware of such a policy in their workplace.

According to some of the interviewees, management ignorance could account for the absence of such policies. When asked why he thought his Australian employer didn’t have a policy like the WSJ, one journalist responded, “They just don’t get it.””

This was the third in a series of articles by Julie Posetti. This article can be found here: http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/.....er170.html

A picture starts to be painted that SNM/SM is not as widely understood or embraced as some people think.

Totally agree with @Martin “Now, I will contradict the above by saying that if a CEO does not fully support the principles of digital marketing, ie. the world has moved from the old era of information asymmetry to information democracy then that can be a barrier to developing and successfully executing SIM programs.”

Which, to bring the topic back to where it started, analogies such as the one this topic is about – while maybe not perfect or a fit for every situation – helps bring the topic into a perspective that some people can understand.

User ID not verified.

Is it just me or do others get a little concerned about these “communications experts” that can’t make a point in less than 1,000 words?

blahblahblahblah talk about liking the look of their own words.

User ID not verified.

My team and I use a UGC response assesment: 1. Discover, 2. Evaluate, 3. Respond

Evaluate:

Trolls – dedicated to bashing and degrading others = avoid responding, aka don’t feed the trolls
Rager – posts rants, rages, jokes or comments satirical in nature = see above
Misguided – are there erroneous facts in the posting = fix the facts
Unhappy customer – is the posting a result of a negative experience = restoration

I will let others decide on what classification ‘Lance from Neighbours’ fits in….

User ID not verified.

What good is social media to big business if they can’t water it down and sell it to the masses?

And i’m not sure who classed Pink in the punk genre, but i’d love to hear the rationalisation for that one…

User ID not verified.

And the comments just keep coming…
Anyone seen this article? http://www.newsweek.com/id/203683?source=cmailer
“Is Your Boss On Twitter?”… interesting in light of the above!

User ID not verified.

embrace the negative it is an opportunity in waiting

anyone who fears social media (gag me) should be looking for a job in newspapers because newspapers are dead and so is their future job potential

User ID not verified.