DISQUS

dondy · 4 months ago

The way I see it there's room for both long term and short term relationships. Brands that don't get into the social media game as you called it, will miss out in all the fun!

As much as long term community engagements are great to have, it would be nice to have a fling or two to spice up and/or give variety in your relationship. And for brands that are just starting out, flings might be the best way to get into it. Commitment level for both parties are limited and is a great way to learn from each other.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that... The fear of not doing it right the first time might be a good thing but its not a good way to approach it. Just like any relationships, its hard to get it right the first time, but how else are you gonna learn, other than from experience! Each brand is different and to think that there is a holy grail into which a brand can mold their interaction and cultivation of their community is absurd!

So in closing I think its ok to be on a break and date other brands! That way the old brand will have to work harder to win you back ;)

leigh · 4 months ago

Notice that i did say community engagement and not social media in general (although since all media is becoming social i'm never sure what that means). I agree that you can use many tactics to do a campaign depending upon what you are trying to achieve but that's not relationship and that's not community.

dondy · 4 months ago

It's not relationships and its not community? Really!

I think we are just getting into semantics here but most kind of marketing communications, specially online, is trying to establish a relationship. May it be a bad one it is still at the core trying to relate or at least start one. And when it comes to campaigns, most of the time we rely on the community to share and spread it around. To top that we even use the quantity and quality of the community as a measure of success!

So I respectfully disagree with that :)

leigh · 4 months ago

Dondy totally disagree with you. We may think or say that but we are completely full of crap then. I bet direct marketers thought their great letters they used to mail were all about relationships too - thus the name 'relationship marketing'

Relationship with my tampon brand of choice? Or my favorite chewing gum? I don't think so. And if that's what digital marketers are telling themselves, i don't think they are doing themselves or their clients any service.

Mark Federman · 4 months ago

The CEO of one of my participant organizations (a direct marketing and ad agency in New York), talks about the traditional little-r big-M relationship Marketing, as in, the focus is on the Marketing - relationship is a euphemism. She has been thinking about turning that around, creating the concept of big-R little-m Relationship marketing, with a focus on creating authentic relationship with consumers. It is a lot more than talking at them through social media. They have been experimenting with first re-creating their own staff in the role of authentic consumers (for one of their pharma clients) to gain a true appreciation of what end consumers experience. The issue of what "relationship" means when you're essentially trying to manipulate someone to donate their attention and spend their money is a complex one (and why they were interested in my work in the first place). But it certainly is not easy. The other one with which they're wrestling is "trust." That's also turning out to be quite a bear.

dondy · 4 months ago

Leigh I value your opinion and also fear your wrath ;)

But, isn't marketing about creating relationships with your consumers? And I think Mark touched on this a little bit. Authenticity is becoming more and more important in advertising and I think its because of social media's loud mouth! The days of trick clicks and underhanded advertising will soon lose its value.

If you're a digital marketer and think that you can get all the information/ROI you need/want from your consumers without establishing a good relationship first, then you're right! You are not doing your client any service.

Maybe we should start at "Dating Marketing" first!

leigh · 4 months ago

lol. Yes my thunderous wrath!

Look Dondy, I"m not disagreeing with you about authenticity, about value exchange - i just think that your using the term relationship so broadly that it's hard for me to disagree. Creating brilliant customer experiences is what i believe we all collectively try to do and sometimes over time if we earn the right, maybe the word relationship is relevant. :)

dondy · 4 months ago

I'm glad that you finally see it my way :p

Mark Federman · 4 months ago

Here's the secret: it's all about relationship in the first place. When marketers focus on instrumentality and behavioural manipulation (as they have been doing for the last 50 years or so) it has every opportunity to go sour and turn enthusiastic consumers into a bunch of hardened cynics.

When marketing is recast in valence terms, to paraphrase McLuhan who paraphrased Joyce, your consumers are your producers. Those whom marketers would target (what a lov-er-ly metaphor - yuck) become far more active when recast as legitimate members of the organization in the context of Valence Marketing. Yup, new buzzword, courtesy of my research.

You're welcome.

leigh · 4 months ago

lol thank you!