The Chicken and the Egg Social Media Conundrum

There are many ways social media differs from traditional marketing. It’s approachable and human. It’s a two-way dialog, rather than unilateral declarations. It treats the customer as a teammate, rather than a target.

But there’s another big difference. In social media, the audience comes after the message, not before.

Remember that when you buy a print ad, or billboard, or print a direct mail piece, or buy radio time, or banner ads, or bus benches, or hire a skywriter, you are doing so because you have some idea of how many people will see your message, and that they are theoretically folks that give a whit about your company.

Social media is the exact opposite.

Hand-to-hand Combat for Eyeballs

You decide you want to join the conversation on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, your blog or wherever, and you start with an audience of zero. The audience accrues based on the quality and authenticity of your message.

Thus, there are really no shortcuts in social media. Sure, you can produce more content, or tweet about it with greater frequency, or be smarter about SEO, or craftily link your social outposts together. But all of those just make a good social media program better – they don’t guarantee you an audience.

And the more I think about it, the more I believe that’s why some marketers have trouble wrestling and conceptualizing social media. Our attention and loyalties are no longer for sale the way they historically have been. In social media, you can’t open up your Arbitron report and figure out which stations will reach your target audience, and write your check and be on drive time in a few days, distributing your message widely.

As Brian Solis puts it so well, we now earn the relationships, trust, and reputation we deserve.

There’s a lot of people out there trying to figure out how to game the system. How to find the secret social media loophole that enables you to grow an audience like a chia pet without having to work at it. I don’t think they’ll find their magic beans, and I hope you don’t let them keep trying.

Yes, it’s hard. Nobody ever promised social media was easy, just that it was fun, and effective. But, unlike every other marketing tool for the past 200 years, it’s a meritocracy, and that benefits us all.

I just started noodling this concept of audience coming after the message the other day. Will you help me think it through in the comments?

(photo by nukeit1)

Tagged as: , , , , , , ,

Did you enjoy this blog post? Let me hear about it:
Comments | Subscribe To This Blog | Sign Up For Our Newsletter
  • AMELIA
    Well, we all have our own Twitter accounts. Setting up Chirrup for us would require talking to the Weblogs overlords. We only control editorial decisions and content, not the design of the site.
  • The message is indeed the important component of building an online audience. I like your analogy to the chicken and the egg. We need to understand the difference between output and an outcome as well. Pushing out content is great but pushing out content that engages and captures an audience is even better. Nice post Jay!
  • markwilliamschaefer
    A thought-provoking post, Jay but I'm constantly confounded when SM marketing is described as a meritocracy as if this is a special designation.

    Pre-social media, you had to earn your right to the consumer heart and wallet every day, too. If you didn't provide a quality product and excellent service, you would fail. In the event that you did have a failure, if your company handled a problem with prompt, honest communications, you would be rewarded.

    The social web offers an exciting new way to connect, but the marketing fundamentals are truly still the same. A free market economy has always been a meritocracy and always will be.
  • Such a great way of look at social media Jay - as always you seem to have struck a core with your readers, and 'hit the nail on the head'. What I think is also interesting is the commitment Social Media demands from Companies. That is what seems to make them start 'sweating'! SM is not a one off campaign, its not a poster you put up for cars to see, or people to read at a bus shelter - its for life (not just Christmas) BUT the pay off is great - your fans and followers become your greatest asset - because they are JUST THAT - FANS and FOLLOWERS. they ticked that box for a reason - they love you. they want to hear more. but you are right - you need to work hard to get them in the first place - but remember that once you have the 'chicken' you cant ignore it and let it die :)
    Thanks again - great post. love your work.
    Lucinda
  • Great post, Jay. You're helping us look at marketing differently, which we should. There's marketing pre-social media, and marketing in social media real time. The concepts are evolving. Old days: define target audience, ready, aim, fire. Todays: sharpen the message, stand in the community "square," and deliver. We used to disparage "ready, fire, aim." In this social media milieu, it's...different.
  • You bet Steve. Not to mention the fact that real-time search powered by social media makes "ready" less than a sure thing - much less aim.
  • Nice post Jay! Very true. I work with many clients that I just can't get through to, that this is a process. People approach social media as a quick fix because they hear all the buzz but you are so right, you start with an audience of zero. After a month you may see a little traffic to your website and a few retweets. After another month you will see a little more. Too many people TRY social media as a quick fix. "I am going to do the social media for a WHOLE month and then I will roll around in all the money I have made". It doesn't work like that and they leave their campaigns to whither and the leave disappointed.

    Thank you again for sharing your ideas with all of us!
  • It's a crazy paradox. Social media isn't cheap or fast, but yet that's STILL the conventional wisdom for most people diving in for the first time. Why?
  • lolbsolis1
    Awesome, Jay!! Could not agree with you more.

    Keep sharing!!

    Cheers,
    Prince
  • I love your ideas and writing style. I will definitely be coming back for more. Keep up the great work!
  • Thank you Staci. That's very nice to hear.
  • I'd like to hear your take on what you think marketers could do to make the most out of social media. For instance, you listed several things that wouldn't guarantee an audience - what do you think WOULD guarantee one? Maybe some case studies/analysis of small companies that have truly exploded onto the scene through marketing?
  • Thanks John. I appreciate the comment. Go to the right hand side of the blog. There's a tab there that says "tags". There's a tag for case studies, and there's a bunch of interesting company stories in there.
  • As a new blogger that takes my blog activity very seriously, I am that person (who was) writing for the audience of zero. (But) as I continue to do the right things like you mentioned I am now seeing more and more traffic. You're exactly right - it's hard work bus as I have found my voice in the mix of social media in my market (photography - more specific concert photography)it is fun and has been rewarding. The principle of patience is where the payoff comes.
  • That's a pretty darn cool focus. Why am I not focused on concert photography? Damn, that sounds fun.
  • Twitter Comment






    An interesting metaphor for social media...[link to post]

    - Posted using Chat Catcher
  • Hi Jay,

    I have to disagree with the concept that agencies might simply buy space, convey their wit, and play the numbers. While it depended on the agency, we spent a significant amount of time understanding the customer, demographics, and psychographics before ever writing any message. So, to that end, it was exactly like social media. The audience comes first.

    I might agree that many advertising agencies have drifted away from that model, primarily because of guerrilla marketing, photoshop possibilities, and direct response; but if you look back at the real talents in the 1950s and 1960s, you'll find that agencies didn't see masses as much as they saw their own wives.

    Anyway, I like the audience first concept. But it has been around a long time, only somewhat forgotten along the way. I'm thrilled you bring it up, however, because it is where advertising, social media, etc. needs to return to be effective.

    All my best,
    Rich
  • Hey Rich. Thanks for the comment. Great to have you here. Of course agencies understand target audiences. That's not my point. The premise is that your could pay to distribute your message (in a learned fashion). In social media, you can't really jump the line.
  • This is a little off point but that is one disturbing looking chicken. In dire need of an ashtray.
  • Chicken no make good house pet.
  • Lots of good comments here. ITA with Bret, others that the raise your hands and shout at the world "interruption marketing" paradigm isn't going to work in SM.

    As for the fight for eyeballs, and the audience coming after the message: so if we build it, they will come? I think it takes more than just creating content; as you mentioned it'll take work to build relationships and develop community and earn an audience. FWIW.
  • Definitely. Content isn't kind. Optimized content + community is king.
  • Clinton Bonner
    Nice post Jay ... But I'm wondering is there a market to deliver 'crowds' on tap? Not just a mass of people, but actual crowds with a hyper-focus within a particular vertical who clearly socially participate. With the advancements of mobile and reward systems for participating ... I see the evolution of marketing research/PR and crowds mashing up, baked with a little tech. advancement ... If the brand can retain authenticity, yet tap crowds when they need them (research, buzz, and tapping crowds to actually grow their own crowds) ... is there a market there somewhere?

    Many of these brands don't have the internal bandwidth to curate their own crowd, or are simply failing at it for a multitude of reasons (while others are nailing it right?) ... So I'm just wondering ... we've all played Chutes n' Ladders ... remember that HUGE ladder that basically covered 75% of the board (the honey pot of ladders in that game!) ... Is there a market for aggregators of influencers/crowds to develop where brands can 'tap' the needed social bandwidth YET do it in a way that is brand sensitive and delivers the feedback and focused buzz the brand wants ???

    Is it Social CRM, Crowdsourcing, the Evolution of Marketing Research or some hybrid being like the poor lead from 'District 9'? I think if carefully constructed, there is a market existing for this to emerge ... as always, high quality post man, great job.
  • I get frustrated when it seems that the goal to some is simply "audience building." I think, ideally, you are correct in saying that the audience accrues based on the quality and authenticity of your message, however I think there's a whole segment of the social media world that tends to have a desire to build followers for the sake of the numbers rather than any kind of relationship building strategy. I actually would rather have a smaller, actively involved, interested and interesting group of people in my social media circle than have the thousands and thousands of followers that probably don't care very much. Like those whose "strategy" is to simply just give stuff away to entice followers. In those cases, it's almost like saying "I don't care what you say, just stand here in my box so I can count you with the rest of my followers. Again it's a quality vs. quantity kind of thing. If the goal is to simply build a huge audience, then it becomes more like advertising. If the goal is to weed through the noise and build a meaningful audience, then you are almost better off keeping it smaller, so you really can interact and develop relationships.
  • Absolutely, Cheryl. Thank you for the reminder. I'm certainly not an advocate of audience building for audience sake. See this post "Are You Cherishing the Wrong Trophy?" about counting fans. It's about engagement, not collection.

    http://www.convinceandconvert.com/web-site-anal...
  • Tene
    You are so right. We have been bathed in a "15 minutes of fame" atmosphere for years now. For staying power, I do believe in content first, and then finding the audience which will be interested.
  • It's still the same, it just takes 3 years to get your 15 minutes. ;)
  • Tene
    That's encouraging, if the renown lasts longer too!
  • Alternate Title: Hey Marketing - Welcome to the World of Product Management

    There is little doubt that you've got this one right Jay. What I find so interesting is that now Marketing has to play by product rules. It is about Target Market Fit - or more simply: What problem are you trying to solve and for whom (specifically).
    Traditionally marketing has been exempt from those rules - they simply took the output (soccer moms between the ages of 26 and 34 with more disposable income than time) and sought to broadcast the message via mediums that already had those eyeballs.
    Where "social" marketing differs is that marketing now needs to earn those eyeballs (What problem are you solving?) by producing content valuable to the target market. Then, and only then, can they get the marketing message across.
    I actually see this as a benefit to both the company and the consumer - finally we will have a consistent message, value proposition and perhaps even tactics across the business execution cycle. Marketing can (and will) act as a partner with product management providing insights into the wants, needs and aspirations of the target market.
    Just imagine how powerful it will be for companies that buy in and have product and marketing pulling on the same rope in the same direction.
  • You are dead-on. Your brand, your content, the trust people have in you IS your product in social media. Helpfulness is the coin of the social media realm.
  • "As Brian Solis puts it so well, we now earn the relationships, trust, and reputation we deserve. "

    This reminds me of the old E.F. Hutton commercial which ended with: "We earn our money the old-fashioned way. We EARN it." If you understand this concept, then you can't help but be successful with your social media strategy IMHO.

    Phyllis Neill
    www.wementorsmm.com
    www.birminghamsocialmedia.com
  • brenabelle
    Very thought-provoking. I think all are valid points, but I see the main difference in traditional marketing vs today's is that it takes time (not necessarily dollars) to do it right. Most marketers are so spoiled into seeing immediate results that the time spent building the audience frustrates them. We immediately begin firing away without realizing there's no one listening. It's interesting to see how large companies are handling this shift vs small companies. The larger companies STILL think you can buy this type of marketing just because that's what they've always done. They end up hiring a consultant who may use all the right tools and best practices, but doesn't understand the audience, the message, and has no vested interest in the sustainability of either. The smaller companies may not have the time, tools or man power to do it right but at least the employees understand the message and who they're talking to.

    I don't think social media marketing is as confusing or ubiquitous as some make it out to be- it just takes time, the right tools and best practices, and most importantly a deep understanding of your audience and brand.
  • Absolutely. Although if you're valuing the time, I'm really not sure that social media is any less expensive than traditional, at the end of the day.
  • It is true that a big challenge for me -- someone who introduces social networks to newbies -- is to convince the newbies that you must build it before they will come, and you have expressed this very well -- excellently, in fact.

    However, I think we should also keep in mind that not everyone truly starts with an audience of zero. Technically, yes; no one has read an unpublished blog any more than they have read an unpublished book. But take for example the case of a successful, ten-year-old internet retail business, who knows via both tracking software and direct customer interaction that customers are reading its email newsletters, mailers (if they have them) and static website articles and descriptions. Now this business wants to start a blog. It is perfectly logical for it to assume that the first few posts will be read. There is no guarantee that people will KEEP reading it -- it has to be a good blog, after all -- but it is starting with the expectation that a certain number of eyeballs will a.) know that it has launched and b.) are likely to check it out.

    In addition, the business may know, by polling customers as they inquire or order, how many of them participate on social networks, and therefore have some idea if their customers are capable of sharing the company's blog posts via those networks. (There is no way of knowing if they are WILLING to share, of course.)

    I did not create such a company out of my imagination, by the way; this describes a company I know.
  • Yes, Angelique. Good point. I think more from the cold start standpoint, since that was my experience here with Convince & Convert, but I'm just leaving a conference where I was speaking about email + social, and using the strength of one to jumpstart the other is definitely a best practice.
  • Interruption marketing just doesn't make sense anymore. People don't like it. And they're voice is as loud as the marketer's.

    Thanks for another excellent post, Jay. You're totally right about marketers having trouble wrestling and conceptualizing social media since the paradigm attention shift. I'm sharing the post now with friends!
  • I'm not sure that individual consumer voices are as loud as marketers', but in aggregate they certainly are. Well said.
  • Ha! I recognize that cigarette! I used that shot in a post a couple of months ago: http://ventajamarketing.com/writingblog/2009/12...

    Did you read the story behind the photo? Something about "this is what happens when soldiers get bored."

    Good choice. Probably not for the chicken, though.
  • bretsimmons
    This is excellent, Jay. Love your point about the audience coming after the message. I see SO MANY marketing and PR types that are not willing to let go of their interruption marketing paradigm. They think they can move their old paradigm tactics to these new platforms and be successful. Most businesses buy this because they are too lazy too do the homework to know the advice is all wrong. New and dynamic platforms demand new and dynamic paradigms. It still shocks me how many people are trying to sell this stuff (social media marketing) to others and they don't practice the new rules of marketing.
  • What scares me is that moving interruption marketing to social media is actually working in some cases. I hope we don't end up deciding that it's all about the media, and not about the social.
  • bretsimmons
    As a consumer that knows better, I make a choice to not spend my money with companies that pretend to practice social media. I NEVER respond to a Facebook ad or fan page. But I will go out of my way to spend money with a local merchant that blogs and tweets, just as a matter of principle.
  • I like the way you phrased getting some ground covered in Soc Media like hand-to-hand combat. I believe this is very accurate, as it's still a relatively new tool in the marketer's aresenal. It also accurately describes how 'road warrior' you have to be when it comes to making soc media work for you and your clients:
    * you have to be quick
    * you have to be flexible
    * you have to make things work for YOU and YOUR TEAM

    Sure, there are rules; but there's no such thing as a THE WAY to do it.

    Great Post, Jay!

    Narciso Tovar
    Big Noise Communications
    @Narciso17
  • I appreciate you stopping by Narcisco. The quickness is a big asset. I'm glad you pointed it out. Being able to respond nimbly is a huge asset. I think I need to write a post about that. Thanks for the seed.
  • Exactly Jay. We used to hope they (audience) find us (company, org) with a shotgun approach (width). Now the shift is we find the lookers for our product or service then engage in conversation. A rifle approach where depth of connection to the individual is more important because it is human. There is conflict because we were used to instant gratification of push tactics and silver bullets. Now we must take time to build relationships/trust through patience and consistent effort. Has this been your experience?
  • Thanks for the comment David. Absolutely, this has been my experience. There's no quick fix. It's gaining readers' trust a little bit every day. Every day. Every day.
blog comments powered by Disqus