Each month, we ask two communications professionals to debate an issue via an exchange of emails. In this month’s discussion, the motion is: “Is social media more relevant for businesses or individuals?”

Jeremy Probert, corporate communications director at London City Airport, is arguing that social media is more relevant to individuals than businesses, while Ben Fox, social media consultant for Fishburn Hedges, takes the position that social media is at least as relevant to businesses as it is to individuals, if not more so.

Dear Jeremy,

To my mind, the motion would be better phrased as ‘Is social media relevant’ – or is it simply shiny stuff that no-one’s tired of yet? Looking at the way most people use SM – and I know I’m generalising – it’s still a lot of cute kittens, updates from Saturday night in Cardiff and spats between minor celebrities, played out in public to entertain the masses. Hardly ‘relevant’ or, indeed, valuable.

in Cardiff and the spatterings of minor celebrities.)
. The motion is, of course, ‘Is social media more relevant for business or individuals?’ Taking this at face value –if social media channels are relevant, they’re more relevant for individuals, obviously. (Especially those with a penchant for supposedly cute kittens, Saturday nights
But I'm ahead of myself

To be clear, I’m not a social media denier: it’s here, it’s noisy - so listen and respond. I simply question SM’s usefulness in a marketing or sales context – two of the three reasons that business might wish to engage – and use in the management of reputation. (Why? Because while social media provide a means of reacting to commentary/crisis rapidly, the commentary/crisis you’re reacting to might not exist or be so severe in the first place, were it not for social media. Social media creates the disease, then touts itself as the cure. )

While social media is, undoubtedly, established, it is still a shiny object, and we cannot be sure if/how it works in a commercial sense. Thus not all businesses have bought what might be seen as the hype of social media. Some, sensibly, maintain a watching brief, listening and responding, but not investing. And this unwillingness to invest, plus a glaring absence of proof of ROI in SM activity, is reflected in the stilldwindling Facebook share price.

All the best

JP

Hi Jeremy,

Thanks for your email – and for starting what will hopefully be a lively debate. Unfortunately, I wholeheartedly disagree with the way in which you have questioned the relevance of social media.

In fact, social media couldn’t be more relevant for businesses in the current communications climate. It’s also no coincidence that the large majority of the world’s top brands have poured millions of golden coins into their social media strategies via Facebook and Twitter – 98% and 94% respectively.

Take a look at McDonald’s, for example, which has intelligently spotted an opportunity to address customer concerns and derail negative myths with a host of engaging video content on their Canadian YouTube channel (which has now penetrated a global audience).

Similarly, General Electric is a shining example of great social media engagement and strategy, from its creative Instagram profile (interesting imagery of jet engines and machinery) to its solid Facebook page timeline (acting as a Wikipedia page of sorts) to its brilliant EcoMagination blog (their work around crowd-sourced sustainability and innovative technology springs to mind).

My list could go on and on and on. But the point is that these brands – well the ones that are using social media so well – are not only generating conversation about themselves in a way that other forms of marketing communications simply couldn’t – but it’s positive chatter and it’s opening up new forms of revenue.

The mass appeal of social media to brands is a direct connection with their audience, their customers and their potential customers. Looking beyond cute kittens, Justin Bieber and which minor celebrity has kissed which background dancer, social media is fundamentally about sharing, transparency and engagement, as well as building trust with your audience - all the things that an individual can do too.

The only difference is that when a brand does it, it has a larger impact and therefore more societal importance. So, I ask, how can social media for an individual bear any more importance than for businesses?

Regards

BF

Hi Ben:

‘The large majority of the world’s top brands’ (if you say so) may well have invested heavily in social media. Doesn’t make them right. Doesn’t make social media more relevant to business as a whole. Or, to the point of this debate, more relevant to business than to the individual.

It’s great to hear about MaccyD’s and GE, and their approaches. I have to say that I’d be more interested in seeing tangible results – in terms of impact on the bottom line – rather than vague statements like ‘engaging content’, ‘shining example’ and ‘global audience’. Where’s the measurable R on the undoubtedly substantial I? You mention new forms of revenue – this interests me, and would help change my opinion – what are they and how much profit can they deliver?

You also use the term ‘positive chatter’, which I’m almost sure is an oxymoron and I’m absolute certain would be anathema to a serious corporate decision maker.

Don’t get me wrong – as I said before – social media is here and it behoves us, as corporate communicators, to engage with it – whether you’re McDonald’s on YouTube, or a small London airport with a best-in-category Twitter feed.

My interpretation of the theme of this debate, however, was not ‘which has the greater societal impact – corporate social media usage, or individual social media usage’. It was ‘is social media more useful (relevant) to business or to the individual’. Social media is more useful to the individual – keeping in touch, keeping informed, being in the right place at the right time, sharing information – social media is, after all, built around the individual. Brands and corporates came later and were – and still are – seen as unwelcome invaders. So – unwelcome and without tangible ROI to show for their efforts. Hard to see how SM could be seen as ‘relevant’ to them.

All best

JP

Hi Jeremy

It’s very interesting that you see a difference between societal impact and relevance around the subject of social media. I believe that they are two harmonious factors that contribute to the successful usage of social media and therefore exist as one entity. To the individual, social media is a method of sharing their present status in a ‘me, me, me’ silo – a person who chooses not to use social media is no worse off for that choice (other than missing the odd voucher code).

Brands using social media choose to do so because it gives them an online voice, as well as the chance to have an intermediary-free conversation – social media platforms offer brands a chance to open up a tailored forum and contain any resulting discussion in a controlled and manageable environment. These contrasting styles of operating within the social media society showcase how individuals use social media to fulfil a want, whereas brands fulfil a genuine need.

Also, I’m not sure that the term ‘positive chatter’ would put off corporate decision makers. I’ve spoken to many of them who would love more conversation online about their brand’s communication efforts. After all, there are still too many corporate organisations living in the shadows of their consumer-friendly counterparts when it comes to creative and innovative means of communication. Social media, for all brands, is the answer to the divide between brand messages and consumer perception, and is therefore of utmost importance, and relevance, to brands in the 21st Century.

To your point on brands being ‘unwelcome invaders’, I have to disagree with you. Yes, there has been a lot of conversation online about monitoring techniques, and that brands are taking advantage of Orwellian analysis tools. But, as you may know, they do this to listen, understand, and evaluate their current processes across their business in order to provide a better service to their customers.

So, when a brand opens up a customer service feed on Twitter (for example), we can assume that the brand is choosing to use social media as a means to satisfy a demand. That action, and the fact that there is a demand in the first place, highlights the strong ROI that social media has to offer – after all, a happy customer is a loyal customer.

Regards

BF

Hi Ben

Societal impact is a big term. I’d argue that wars, famine, and revolutions have societal impact – social media allows people access to information more quickly and provide new behaviours for the tabloids to write about. Admittedly, it’s a question of definitions, but the term confers more weight upon social media than it deserves. And relevance to a user group is a different thing.

Brands using social media do so, in many cases, because everyone else is and they don’t want to miss out. Social media platforms do not provide a controlled and manageable environment – this is the internet we’re talking about. It is not controlled, limited or – yes – policed. Get it wrong – or be perceived to get it wrong – and you’ll not be controlling or managing anything. Individuals using social media are not, I hope, all in the ‘me, me, me’ silo. I agree there are many who are desperate for attention – who use social media as an extension of reality TV – but there are many more who are looking for user-generated content, and are generating their own, useful, content.

The point remains that social media was invented for the individual, whether the individual uses it to fulfil a want or a need, and it has been hi-jacked by businesses in the pursuit of sales.

Businessess engaging in social media activity, I’m sure you’d agree, must tread very carefully – if it’s too commercial, the audience disappears. Those brands that use social media as a vox pop tool (message vs perception) should take note of the phrase’s origin: ‘Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.’ [‘We should not listen to those who say that the voice of the people is the voice of God, since the uproar of the crowd is always very close to madness’ – Alcuin of York]. And social media certainly brings out the insanaiae of the vulgi.

We cannot assume that brands use social media to satisfy a demand. Businesses use social media to see what happens, not because there is a demand for them to do so. In terms of ROI – well, I agree there are happy people and loyal people, but they’re not customers until they buy something – and there’s a lack of evidence that SM activity results in sales. The individual benefits from SM, the business less so.

Best

JP

Hi Jeremy

To your point about the brands that use social media as a ‘vox pop tool’, I can only say that once you dig through the piles of throwaway drivel you will find key business insights, thematic topics and influential conversationalists that have the power to change the way a business operates – both online and in the real world. An analytics ‘guru’ would be able to sift through stacks of data to produce a solid report that delivers an intellectual overview of the social media landscape.

For individuals, however, data and insight mean very little, other than purely the number of ‘likes’ or friends that a profile currently has. Again, any brand with access to the kind of data that Facebook’s Open Graph can deliver opens up a world of possibilities – right from connecting with an audience and grabbing their attention in an often-saturated environment, through to improving the bottom line of a business by driving hard sales online.

And back to the old ROI argument, I see. Brands make money via social through individuals. And not the other way around (unless we count bloggers with a working knowledge of eBay), and there’s a reason for that – social media is relevant to brands in many more ways than the individual will ever understand, or require. Hence, again why I will tell you how relevant a strong and strategic social media presence is for brands – get it right, like so many have and haven’t, and you’ll reap the rewards and be perceived the best in your class (or not).

Despite my thoughts, I must add that the relevance to individuals and brands will continue to grow with great momentum – but brands must be warned that unless they keep their customers, and the general populations, entertained, educated and inspired through long-term projects (not giveaways and competitions), they might find themselves on the end of a rather large invoice from their social media activity and nothing to show for it.

Now, enough of this, let’s go and find some cute kittens to share on Facebook! #gangnamstyle

Regards

BF