Beware the social media expert selling a bag full of 'should'.
Everybody can tell you what you 'should' do and you can waste a great deal of time on it. The focus is what you 'can' do. We're moving beyond theory and putting effort behind strategies and tactics that achieve the goals we set.
I'm not saying that forward-thinking is not valuable, it is, as long as it has realistic expectations. Many things that sound good in a speech or on a tweet just don't scale well. You know a broad statement like:
Companies should talk to their customers.
Great, sounds good. But how exactly do you implement that? Which department(s) manages it? How do we measure it? The list of practical questions goes on and on.
Let's talk about scale. If you're a small business how do you scale that down? As in prioritizing online activities over other core business functions? Now let's go the other way, if you're an organization of 100,000+, how do you do it?
Then of course the 'should' factor gets compounded by shiny-new-objetcts. For example, "You should be on X" Where X equals...well, take your pick (Foursquare, Posterous, etc). Really? Beyond the initial statement how does that fit into our broader communications strategy?
I can't tell you how many times a 'social media expert' has said, "You should do this...." and they've only mapped out a strategy or content for a few weeks at most and given little thought to resources
Ok, rant over.
I'll take your bag of 'should' and show you where you 'can' put it. :-)












Visitor Comments
Josh,
I like the post and the concept, as I can see where you're coming from, and when people/consultants stop at "should" is where the problem is, IMO. There is no "meat on that bone."
In order to be successful, companies have to align their Corporate goals with their Social strategies.
If you align both goals, then you can effectively and successfully say, "We 'should' be doing x to accomplish y, and this is how we "are" going to move forward, and these are the different phases." Planning for the future is key.
Mike P
Posted by: Mike P | January 4, 2010 3:08 PM
I agree with you, but I feel that brands should be flexible enough to experiment with new platforms -- e.g. Foursquare -- as long as there's a clear objective in mind.
Quite frankly, I think it comes down to relationships and trust, and whether PR professionals can make a case for smart experimentation with the right platforms.
Posted by: Daniel Honigman | January 4, 2010 4:19 PM
I completely agree with where you're coming from, Josh. But to expand Mike's point above, I actually think that "should" is, to a certain extent, what we should absolutely be doing with clients. Largely agencies have failed their clients over and over for NOT finding a way to tell them more about what they should do.
That said, there are two types of "should": informed and uninformed. The snake oil folks are giving out the "should" without understanding the business goals/objectives/needs/realities you mention.
Posted by: Jake McKee | January 13, 2010 2:08 PM
top edhardy sunglass
www.lookedhardy.com
Posted by: cici | February 4, 2010 9:09 PM