Social media marketing engagement heart and arrowMost of us marketers, aged 30-ish plus, were professionally born and bred in the age of mass communications. So, it’s not strange that many marketers enter the social media arena with a mass-marketing headset.

Social media marketing: about Reach?

If there is one thing you need in mass communications; it’s Reach. You need to reach a lot of people, for the simple reason that only a few of those will buy something from you.

When you are still is mass-marketing headset, it is tempting to view social media as a new way to reach more people.

But search engines and social media have changed the landscape of marketing communications forever. This is because on the social web you can now reach people directly!

So, why would you put money, energy and resources into reaching many when you can also choose to reach only those that you need to reach? That strategy is much more effective.

A different headset

Social media marketing is not about reaching more people. Social media marketing is about reaching specific people.

This is a completely different headset.

If you want to become a successful marketer on the social web, there is one thing you need to fundamentally change in your thinking:

You don’t need to go out and find customers.

Customers need to find you!

This has massive impact on your marketing communication strategy. You need to first focus on being found by specific target audiences. Then you start focusing on Engagement.

Social media marketing: about Engagement!

Now we get to the real crux of it: what are you going to do once your target audience has found you?

The answer is: you need to talk to them. Engage in a real conversation with them. Listen to them. Answer their questions. Inform them. Offer them great customer service. Make it easy for them to Engage with you!

Social media marketing allows you to build real relationships with your prospects, customers and stakeholders.

This is where in my opinion social media marketing is at its core closer related with public relations than with marketing. You can move people from one place to another. Earn their Trust. Influence the way they think about you. Influence what they tell others about you.

Social media marketing gives you opportunity to turn strangers into friends, friends into customers and customers into ambassadors.

This is a massive game changer!!

And it is not about reach. It’s about engagement.

Related Articles

  1. Social Media & SEO: the importance of a Keyword Strategy for marketing on the social web
  2. Marketing in social media: there’s no substitute for caring!
  3. Is email marketing better than social media marketing?
  4. Did I mention mass communications doesn’t work in social media?
  5. The difference between a customer and a fan: a story about customer service & advertising in social media
  • http://twitter.com/rvgeenhuizen Robert v. Geenhuizen

    The new marketing is all about engagement/interaction. This is the main concept. Interaction vs. interruption. Social Media marketing is not a good name for it i guess. When we talk about Social Media, we talk about just one group of tools of interacting with people.

    I made a nice mindmap on this subject, maybe you like this! https://www.mindmeister.com/maps/show/58978478

    Cheers, Robert!

    • http://www.michielgaasterland.com/ MichielGaas

      Hi Robert,

      I like your mindmap. Cool. Just tweeted it.

      Regarding the changed landscape of communications, I like your observation of interruption marketing being linear. This is really the crunch. It’s all non-linear now. Different persona groups, using different channels, looking for different solutions, in different stages of their decision making proces.

      In your mindmap you are mentioning pros & cons. Re the Cons, I definitely agree with the Long term thing. Not sure I agree with the Scale thing. I think Permission marketing is more scaleable then Interruption marketing.

      You are right in the sense that you can keep spending for more Reach. In that sense a TV add, radio or print add is scaleable for more reach.

      In social media, one piece of content for instance text, can be reformated to different formats (video, infographics, podcast, presentation, et al).

      Also, you can create master content and then tailor it to specific target audiences and different channels.

      I think the deal with the scale aspect that you are reffering to, is that it’s out of your hands. You don’t control it. But it can be shared! It could even go viral. Pretty scaleable!

      What do you think?

      Cheers!
      & thanks again for your comment!

      Michiel

      • http://twitter.com/rvgeenhuizen Robert v. Geenhuizen

        Great you like it! With scalability i mean the following:

        ‘The relationshop between input vs. output and the scalability of the mechanism behind it.’

        Example:
        If your TV commercial reaches 100.000 people and from this 100.000 people, 10% goes to the website to read more about it and 1% buys the product. So now you now the conversion rate.

        Now you can do two things. Make sure you buy more reach so you get more conversions. Or otherwise optimize the content and buying proces.

        And let’s not forget the measurement of the effect of repeating the commercial.

        But bottomline is that there is a clear relationship between important factors that give you the ability to scale your marketing efforts to get higher results. If you do more of this… if you reach more people… These mechanisms can often with some minor adjustments easily be copied to other countries or regions. You get recipes where you only have to put in more ingredients to make more of it.

        If we talk about engagement or interaction, this is a whole otter ballgame. Let’s imagine that a comp[any is a beautiful appletree. Interruption marketing is very focussed on selling the fruits. This is basically the main goal en this is easily measurable.

        When we talk about interaction, we don’t talk about selling the fruits. It’s more about creating the right conditions for organic growth. Traditionally with interruption marketing you start wit interupting many people and end up with just a few buying. With interaction marketing it’s all turned around You start interacting with just one person, and you end up with many people(Brand advocacy, Co-creations, People using Branded services etc.).

        So interaction is like the soil where the tree is growing on. When you do it good, you have all kinds of beautiful things grow on:
        - Better fruits(products) trough co-creation and better understanding of your cusomters(better insights en higher empathy level)
        - Better sales cycly because your brand is more authentic. It’s not only shaped by what you tell people as a company about the brand, but also shaped by their own experiences(interactions) with the brand.
        - More brand advocacy trough the ‘love mark’ people have for you
        - etc.

        But its much more organic and much more strategic then with interruption marketing. You need a stronger long-term focus and it’s not that easy scalable because you have many more targets and ways of measuring things.

        One thing i would like to emphasize is that engagement is good measurable. I call it the 4 i’s:

        Involvement — the presence of a person at the various brand touchpoints. Metrics include Web site visitors,
        time spent per page, physical store visits, impressions from mass media advertising, etc. Data sources include Web Analytics, store traffic reports, etc.

        Interaction — the actions people take while present at those touchpoints. Metrics include click-throughs, online transactions, in-store purchases,
        uploaded photos or videos, etc. Data sources include eCommerce platforms, POS systems, social media platforms, etc.

        Intimacy — the affection or aversion a person holds for a brand.Metrics include sentiment measurement in blog posts, blog comments, discussion forums, customer
        service call sentiment,etc. Data sources include brand monitoring services, survey responses, customer service call centers, etc.

        Influence — the likelihood a person is to advocate on behalf of the brand. Metrics include brand awareness, loyalty, affinity, repurchases,
        Net Promoter, satisfaction ratings, forwarded content, etc. Data sources include market research services, brand monitoring, customer service
        call centers, surveys, etc.

        Unfortanlly most companies only like to measure how the heart is ticking(how many fruits you sell). But i believe you also should measure all kinds of otter vital things that the 4 i’s represent. Being health is also about how fit you are, your blood pressure etc… But i guess companies aren’t ready for this jet.

        Maybe a large answer, but i hope i answers your question!

        Cheers!

        • http://www.michielgaasterland.com/ MichielGaas

          We are completely in sync Robert.
          I really like the way you are thinking.
          & totally agree with the measurement of Engagement.

          The ‘scale thing’ got me thinking.
          And I need to think about it a little bit more :)
          Will probably do a blog post on it.

          My feeling is that permission marketing IS scaleable.
          The challenge is that it works in a TOTALLY different way.
          Which is something not many people have figured out.
          So in that sense, from where the market is, interruption marketing is considered to be more EASILY scaleable.

          The basic difference we are dealing with here is:

          Mass communications (Interruption & Reach)
          Vs
          Targeted communications (Persmission & Engagement)

          Suppose your market potential is 100.
          Both strategies would have a completely different method of getting towards that market potential.

          In mass comms you would first figure out conversion, buy more reach and scale accordingly (if this would actually be sustainable in nowadays fragemented media landscape).

          In targeted comms you would first figure out exactly who your target audiences are to understand their needs and behaviors. You then create and publish valuable content that offers solutions to their problems. You then engage with these people in conversation.

          This is also HIGHLY scaleable.

          Once you have figured out buyer persona behavior, you can start looking at your stats and repeat what works best. You can contineously publish content that answers specific questions from specific buyer personas in different stages of their decision making process.

          All this (optimised) content will continue to be found by those looking for solutions to their problems.

          If you now compare the mass comms strategy and the targeted comms strategy:

          1. They are both targeting the same people
          2. Mass comms is targeting them all at once
          3. Targeted comms is targeting them one by one.

          The question is: who gets there first. Who’s the first one with a full basket? :)

          I’ll give it a thorough think and do a post on it.

          Thanks for your extensive comment & answer!

          Take care,
          Michiel

          • Anonymous

            I have to agree with you on the scalability. I think we don’t know enough about how it works yet. But don’t forget, both techniques have different targets. Interruption marketing only focusses on selling things, interaction marketing goes beyond that. So yes, you could achieve the same, but i don’t think you must want this.

            Use it where its best in. Interaction marketing is not better or a replacement for interruption marketing, it’s just a new way which help you to do things you could not do in the past. you can learn more from your customers, you can make better products that are more valuable to them and people talk more about them therefore. This was impossible to do with interruption marketing.

            interruption marketing can do unique things, interaction marketing also. I think where it goes wrong is that companies use them wrong. many times they use interruption marketing for short-term goals and destroy the fundaments for long-term goals with it. So it’s good to use interruption marketing to tell people (informing) about your product for example. But it is a bad thing if this interruption damages your brand or image. And don’t forget, that sustainable brands need a strong fundament, and this is where interaction marketing kicks in. It help you to make better products, enlarge customer empathy and boost your sales cycles. And this helps you not to be just depended on your large interruption marketing budgets.

            So both have their own goals and can live perfectly together. But most importantly are two rules:

            1. Interruption marketing may never damage long-term strategic goals
            2. I do this one in Dutch: interruptie marketing is een voldoende voorwaarde voor succes waar interactie marketing een noodzakelijke voorwaarde is geworden.

            I am looking forward to your blogpost. Note that i am making a infographic in the subject interruption marketing vs. interaction marketing. I hope the Dutch version will be ready this week.

            Cheers,
            Robert

  • http://twitter.com/rvgeenhuizen Robert v. Geenhuizen

    The new marketing is all about engagement/interaction. This is the main concept. Interaction vs. interruption. Social Media marketing is not a good name for it i guess. When we talk about Social Media, we talk about just one group of tools of interacting with people.

    I made a nice mindmap on this subject, maybe you like this! https://www.mindmeister.com/maps/show/58978478

    Cheers, Robert!

  • http://www.michielgaasterland.com/ MichielGaas

    Hi Robert,

    I like your mindmap. Cool. Just tweeted it.

    Regarding the changed landscape of communications, I like your observation of interruption marketing being linear. This is really the crunch. It's all non-linear now. Different persona groups, using different channels, looking for different solutions, in different stages of their decision making proces.

    In your mindmap you are mentioning pros & cons. Re the Cons, I definitely agree with the Long term thing. Not sure I agree with the Scale thing. I think Permission marketing is more scaleable then Interruption marketing.

    You are right in the sense that you can keep spending for more Reach. In that sense a TV add, radio or print add is scaleable for more reach.

    In social media, one piece of content for instance text, can be reformated to different formats (video, infographics, podcast, presentation, et al).

    Also, you can create master content and then tailor it to specific target audiences and different channels.

    I think the deal with the scale aspect that you are reffering to, is that it's out of your hands. You don't control it. But it can be shared! It could even go viral. Pretty scaleable!

    What do you think?

    Cheers!
    & thanks again for your comment!

    Michiel

  • http://twitter.com/rvgeenhuizen Robert v. Geenhuizen

    Great you like it! With scalability i mean the following:

    'The relationshop between input vs. output and the scalability of the mechanism behind it.'

    Example:
    If your TV commercial reaches 100.000 people and from this 100.000 people, 10% goes to the website to read more about it and 1% buys the product. So now you now the conversion rate.

    Now you can do two things. Make sure you buy more reach so you get more conversions. Or otherwise optimize the content and buying proces.

    And let's not forget the measurement of the effect of repeating the commercial.

    But bottomline is that there is a clear relationship between important factors that give you the ability to scale your marketing efforts to get higher results. If you do more of this… if you reach more people… These mechanisms can often with some minor adjustments easily be copied to other countries or regions. You get recipes where you only have to put in more ingredients to make more of it.

    If we talk about engagement or interaction, this is a whole otter ballgame. Let's imagine that a comp[any is a beautiful appletree. Interruption marketing is very focussed on selling the fruits. This is basically the main goal en this is easily measurable.

    When we talk about interaction, we don't talk about selling the fruits. It's more about creating the right conditions for organic growth. Traditionally with interruption marketing you start wit interupting many people and end up with just a few buying. With interaction marketing it's all turned around You start interacting with just one person, and you end up with many people(Brand advocacy, Co-creations, People using Branded services etc.).

    So interaction is like the soil where the tree is growing on. When you do it good, you have all kinds of beautiful things grow on:
    - Better fruits(products) trough co-creation and better understanding of your cusomters(better insights en higher empathy level)
    - Better sales cycly because your brand is more authentic. It's not only shaped by what you tell people as a company about the brand, but also shaped by their own experiences(interactions) with the brand.
    - More brand advocacy trough the 'love mark' people have for you
    - etc.

    But its much more organic and much more strategic then with interruption marketing. You need a stronger long-term focus and it's not that easy scalable because you have many more targets and ways of measuring things.

    One thing i would like to emphasize is that engagement is good measurable. I call it the 4 i's:

    Involvement — the presence of a person at the various brand touchpoints. Metrics include Web site visitors,
    time spent per page, physical store visits, impressions from mass media advertising, etc. Data sources include Web Analytics, store traffic reports, etc.

    Interaction — the actions people take while present at those touchpoints. Metrics include click-throughs, online transactions, in-store purchases,
    uploaded photos or videos, etc. Data sources include eCommerce platforms, POS systems, social media platforms, etc.

    Intimacy — the affection or aversion a person holds for a brand.Metrics include sentiment measurement in blog posts, blog comments, discussion forums, customer
    service call sentiment,etc. Data sources include brand monitoring services, survey responses, customer service call centers, etc.

    Influence — the likelihood a person is to advocate on behalf of the brand. Metrics include brand awareness, loyalty, affinity, repurchases,
    Net Promoter, satisfaction ratings, forwarded content, etc. Data sources include market research services, brand monitoring, customer service
    call centers, surveys, etc.

    Unfortanlly most companies only like to measure how the heart is ticking(how many fruits you sell). But i believe you also should measure all kinds of otter vital things that the 4 i's represent. Being health is also about how fit you are, your blood pressure etc… But i guess companies aren't ready for this jet.

    Maybe a large answer, but i hope i answers your question!

    Cheers!

  • http://www.michielgaasterland.com/ MichielGaas

    We are completely in sync Robert.
    I really like the way you are thinking.
    & totally agree with the measurement of Engagement.

    The 'scale thing' got me thinking.
    And I need to think about it a little bit more :)
    Will probably do a blog post on it.

    My feeling is that permission marketing IS scaleable.
    The challenge is that it works in a TOTALLY different way.
    Which is something not many people have figured out.
    So in that sense, from where the market is, interruption marketing is considered to be more EASILY scaleable.

    The basic difference we are dealing with here is:

    Mass communications (Interruption & Reach)
    Vs
    Targeted communications (Persmission & Engagement)

    Suppose your market potential is 100.
    Both strategies would have a completely different method of getting towards that market potential.

    In mass comms you would first figure out conversion, buy more reach and scale accordingly (if this would actually be sustainable in nowadays fragemented media landscape).

    In targeted comms you would first figure out exactly who your target audiences are to understand their needs and behaviors. You then create and publish valuable content that offers solutions to their problems. You then engage with these people in conversation.

    This is also HIGHLY scaleable.

    Once you have figured out buyer persona behavior, you can start looking at your stats and repeat what works best. You can contineously publish content that answers specific questions from specific buyer personas in different stages of their decision making process.

    All this (optimised) content will continue to be found by those looking for solutions to their problems.

    If you now compare the mass comms strategy and the targeted comms strategy:

    1. They are both targeting the same people
    2. Mass comms is targeting them all at once
    3. Targeted comms is targeting them one by one.

    The question is: who gets there first. Who's the first one with a full basket? :)

    I'll give it a thorough think and do a post on it.

    Thanks for your extensive comment & answer!

    Take care,
    Michiel

  • robertvangeenhuizen

    I have to agree with you on the scalability. I think we don't know enough about how it works yet. But don't forget, both techniques have different targets. Interruption marketing only focusses on selling things, interaction marketing goes beyond that. So yes, you could achieve the same, but i don't think you must want this.

    Use it where its best in. Interaction marketing is not better or a replacement for interruption marketing, it's just a new way which help you to do things you could not do in the past. you can learn more from your customers, you can make better products that are more valuable to them and people talk more about them therefore. This was impossible to do with interruption marketing.

    interruption marketing can do unique things, interaction marketing also. I think where it goes wrong is that companies use them wrong. many times they use interruption marketing for short-term goals and destroy the fundaments for long-term goals with it. So it's good to use interruption marketing to tell people (informing) about your product for example. But it is a bad thing if this interruption damages your brand or image. And don't forget, that sustainable brands need a strong fundament, and this is where interaction marketing kicks in. It help you to make better products, enlarge customer empathy and boost your sales cycles. And this helps you not to be just depended on your large interruption marketing budgets.

    So both have their own goals and can live perfectly together. But most importantly are two rules:

    1. Interruption marketing may never damage long-term strategic goals
    2. I do this one in Dutch: interruptie marketing is een voldoende voorwaarde voor succes waar interactie marketing een noodzakelijke voorwaarde is geworden.

    I am looking forward to your blogpost. Note that i am making a infographic in the subject interruption marketing vs. interaction marketing. I hope the Dutch version will be ready this week.

    Cheers,
    Robert

  • Pingback: Do you want to tap into social media? Or vice versa?