Five Lies About Social Media Marketing

I agree with your thoughts. It is true that size of the company doesn't really matters. Small company with good product and efficient marketing strategy may succeed more than the bigger ones. 

Social media marketing is growing like never before, so its jst safe to assume there are "social media marketers" out there..

Excellently written article, if only all bloggers offered the same level of content as you, the internet would be a much better place. Please keep it up! 

Really great post, Thank you for sharing This knowledge.

Glad to see this information.its very interesting.I would like to hear more information from your side.

Appreciated reading your site on this exceptional weblog we appreciate you the content

Yes it can be hard work giving your time to social media but anything in life worth doing takes time too ..just part of life so smile and get connecting.

Really enjoyed reading your post on this outstanding website i appreciate you for this article

Are there people injecting themselves irresponsibly into the world of college basketball recruiting? Absolutely. But it's not limited to online publishing.

Mikal, Businesses tend to use social media sites as a way for free advertisement.  Most of these websites are free to have and are easy to use.  This allows a business to upload pictures, display new products and services, and keep customers up to date with the business.

Worked on a multi-platform website which got 150 views a month.. A failure? No, its for the top eye surgeons in the world. It is indeed all about the quality of eyeballs, but also about the quality of conversation. It is so true that unless social media is integrated into the traditional media people use, it just doesn't work for most of us. Have had considerable success in building social media exit strategies - what to do when the campaign is over. So point number 5 rings so true to me.

I agree with you too Patrick. What you want to call, gurus, experts or professionals, if you are helping a company to do what they want who cares. I know the wonderful people who call themselves experts and their customers love. SEO Company

What I would like to see debunked is why Ad Agencys are so anti hiring Client Side Marketers, but the opposite isn't true. Really frustrates me!!

People call SM the way it suits them for their arguments, lets keep the discussion empirical and practical, otherwise as I've said elsewhere, social media is just a 'wannabe' for any commercial purpose, propped up by endless self fulfilling prophecies. Give me the success stories, and tell me how they did it.

Absolutely - I don't even call it SM Marketing anymore, but SM Engagement. Which, despite rumors to the contrary, IS measurable.

Good point. #5 is totally true. I still think businesses should invest a little time on learning SM. If they're really passionate about their business I guess. Isn't social media about getting in on the conversation?

I agree with you too Patrick. Whatever you want to call them, gurus, experts or professionals, if they're actually helping a company accomplish what they want who cares. I know great people that call themselves experts and their clients love them.

I find Social Media interesting and addictive so it can be turned into something.  Everybody agrees and after that it's chaos.  Marketing has always been a free-for-all that's way it is exciting.  Increased sales - more money - gain is the deciding factor as to wether your business will continue in Social Media Marketing.  

Man I wish we'd let the debate die about social media experts and gurus. This topic is just getting beat to death .

Thank you Marshall Mcluhan.

Being new to social media this put things in perspective for me. Just like most things common sense prevails.

I find some of this information insightful like the segment about “followers” and “likes”. As a local party promoter, I know all too well that just because I have 1,000 people saying that they are attending my Facebook event does not actually mean all 1,000 people will actually show up. I found that the best way to get people to my events was to manage my on-line presence (the service I use). If I see an online review about a party I promoted, I will take that information and use it to improve my next party. I believe this is the best way to really keep your customers happy and keep them coming back. 

Would you say that Old Spices' use of SM was not measurable.  http://www.facebook.com/victoriassecret 's use of Facebook to engage & interact with 14million 'fans' has tremendous worth.  The ability to communicate directly with customers on Social Media I would argue is a lot more pure than BS Focus Groups where one strong personality, or a couple of college students who need the money can skew the results. To me the ROI is simple: do says grow over the period of time you have implemented an smart Social Media strategy.  Just being ON SM to network isn't the same as using it as a marketing tool.

#5 is without a doubt my favorite, and the one I want to shout from the roof tops. I help small businesses create a SM strategy and teach them the platforms/programs they need, and basic etiquette.  I don't call myself a guru or expert, but student. Too many of my clients just want to write a check for #5 because they don't want to invest the time in REALLY using SM properly.

There was no market for the PC before Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. No market for the automobile before Henry Ford or railroads before George Stephenson or aircraft before the Wright Brothers. No market for a light bulb before Edison. Now was there any infrastructure, support systems - software, gas stations, electrical grid and table lamps for any of these inventions. If you had made a Powerpoint presentation - before PPoint was invented of course - for any of these to anyone, you would not have gotten a gobbet of spit of encouragement and been sent on your own lonely way. There was no market for Facebook or MySpace. What's going on here? 1. Markets are created out of nothing by good inventions.  2. And good inventions USUALLY BUT NOT ALWAYS begin as toys. Playthings. Curiosities.  Like blogs. I rest my case.

Where can I find somebody locally (Mission Viejo, CA) to  set up and implement social media-related efforts for me.  I will create the messages.

A great post. I agree 100% with 2,3,4 and 5 but not entirely with 1.  Maybe I agree with 1 say ...  85% :-) Whilst quality and relevancy absolutely do matter, there is a sales numbers and ratio game to be played here.    More Twitter followers has driven more traffic ditrectly from Twitter to my websites.  More traffic = more potential opportunities - and I have achieved additional enquiries and sales (yee ha result!) as a consequence.  Since the Panda update and Google's intention to attribute a measure of authority to a businesses social media activities or profile, IMHO (quality) numbers have to matter.  Quality? No-one outside of Google knows but I would expect quality to consider followers and follower/friend ratios, tweets, re-tweets, etc etc etc maybe Blog posts, comments, Youtube uploads and engagement ...  ?? Hooray for number 3 btw!  With the exception of Yoda (who was flawed anyway) Gurus dont exist.  I am a newbie and chuckle to see so called Gurus, consultants and experts on the same Social Media training courses as me.

I think this article is spot on, espcially with regard to message and social media gurus.  I think most of the criticism of the article comes from those whose ox is being gored. There is no doubt social media is a marketing platform for "some" businesses, but it's certainly not for all.  Most of the people making money with social media are people selling the "sizzle" of social media marketing.

Marketing is difficult and expensive not always effective no mater the medium

Social media is 'wannabe'. Everyone and their granny is trying to justify a meaningful use for it, especially in my field - hotels and travel - to find its 'slot' in the overall marketing process, frankly without much success in my view. The best expression of this I found is when a so called 'social media marketing guru' said 'there is little evidence of scalable success to offer for social media because it is yet to come' No wonder you get frankly meaningless statements like social media is an essential part of the marketing mix, but its application differs for each company &c &c - that muddying of the waters is at the root of the problem of social media - no one knows really what to do with it, nobody knows how to measure success, or what success in social media marketing actually looks like. The classic is as a reputation management tool - well sorry I use Trip Advisor and OTA reviews, supplemented by on line guest surveys, because I work in hotel solutions, and want actual industry specific data, not a lot of chatter and noise from a non- travel specific social networking site. I always go back to the opportunity, the opportunity cost and the 'distraction value'; of a particular marketing tool, device, or concept. To me, in a day of tight budgets, justifying e.g. an investment in social media against e.g. a targeted adwords spend (one presumes you have to prioritise spend) is a very hard call. Furthermore, there are many lazy hoteliers out there who haven't anywhere near exhausted the potential of their existing marketing mix (including their website - there are some shocking examples of awful websites out there), and their whole on line profiling and presentation - to whom social media is an unnecessary distraction. The other issue is the degree of risk. Anything which disseminates information, especially  unvalidated information in an open system to a huge worldwide audience is a risk.  This is probably the biggest downside of social media and it is potentially huge, as some companies and people have discovered. Most social media 'gurus' don't even mention this. I wonder why? To date, I have left it where it is for what it is - social networking.- rather than having to find and try to justify a use for it, because right now I don't have the evidence to justify it as a worthwhile  item of cost in my clients' marketing budgets, against other much more proven and successful marketing options. That day may come, but there is no evidence to suggest that its anytime soon.

A little too General? Size can/does matter - for the simple point of cost.  Small businesses tend to work to tighter schedules - which leaves less time to research/learn, develop/deploy for things like SEO/Website design/leveraging Social Media. The medium is the message. I remember arguing over things like this in college. The Medium can/does make a difference - simply due to the audience. If you are only approachable via certain a channel/medium - then you are sending a message to those without/who dislike that channel, regardless of what the missive/words are in your real message. It's also Not just the Medium, but the outlet source as well. Twitter and/or Facebook?  Are they getting into things like technorati as well? It changes who is more likely to see it - thus who is more important. I'm not a fan of the term "Guru". Taht aside - there are always likely to be those who are in the know. Either they havea knack, they are lucky, or they apply a lot of time/effort into researching/learning. They are at the top. Of course - that doesn't mean that they will have a magic touch ... but as with most things in life, you should pay at least a little attentino to those at the top. Not sure I get teh whole "new" media part. you argue it isn't new media, then confuse it with only experts can use it. Thats 2 very different points. It is somewhat new (in comparison to the telephone, radio, print etc.). And I'm not seeing anything replacing it yet. I have to disagree in part with the last one. I have met and dealt with plenty of peopel who know naff all about their own business. Thy do't know their clients that well - they don't know their market that well, they don't know their suppliers that well....... ..... and I've worked with marketers that go all out and integrate with various aspects of a business, interview teh staff and get a real feel for things. So who is going to know more about that business in such situations? Right. all those niggly bits aside ... in general ... I agree with you :D

The Printing Press Someone may be able to operate a printing press, but that does not make him a great writer. Seems like right now as technology is moving faster and faster, the "social tech" people are running the presses and inserting the content as they go. I feel like so much of it is spam. I could tell a long story involving a local car dealership, but I wont. Have a great day!

Jim, as you already know (because we've taken this discussion to your post on your own website, and now onto Twitter!), I believe both the medium and the message are important, and neither can be ignored. A poorly-crafted message on a well-attended-to medium will fall flat and get zero traction, because no one will take the writer seriously. A well-written and carefully-crafted message on a poorly-attended-to-medium (like my own on LinkedIn) will likely be ignored, because no one cares who you are. Great points you've made otherwise, though. I've changed my mind over the last few months about outsourcing social media. I used to be a purist, but now I see why so many have to outsource. It's about delegating, and delegating to the right people saves time and money in the long run.

Social media represents a very broad and diverse tool kit. How to use and select social media platforms depends on a thoughtful understanding of the business and its objectives. The problem with self proclaimed social media experts, geeks and gurus is underlying business metrics are rarely considered in their tactical frenzy.. Social media should be an extension of a business, not the business. 

Thanks for starting this debate.  Personally I think the answer is that it is not as simple as you have made it.  I do most of my work in the not-for-profit sector and the issue for example of 'size' is different to what the answer may be for a business.  If your objective is to generate awareness and maintain a level of social consciousness - surely size matters. If your objective is sales, quality wins. Of course there is a critical mass you might need to achieve to generate enough quality. It also depends on your objectives and the quality of the people you have at your disposal either within the organisation or external agencies as to how successful you can be.  But most importantly - you must look at a business or NFP on its merits and understand what they are trying to achieve before you can determine what is right and what might be a lie. When it comes to the issue of social media experts or gurus - surely the answer here is that this field is no different to any other.  Back it up with evidence and demonstrated relevant skill / implementation and you can carry the tag 'guru'.  But no one person has the winning formula for everyone. Personally I think the secret is all in taking the time to understand a business or organisation and working on fundamental communication strategies and then building to a digital strategy that is integrated and built on sold business foundations.  If you can master that...well then the only lies are when you don't bother listening to what is right.

Thank you Mr. Belicove.

You people need to stop arguing about semantics and get back to realizing "its about the customer stupid".   Social media is a another media channel (and many other things) and we need to refine our marketing messages to target the audiences in these channels.  And by the way, I have been in the marketing and advertising business for 25 years and I am a professor of Internet Marketing.    I think Social Media is fantastic.  It's just the type of channel that we marketers need to target yet another segment of our market.   Renee Jones SCG Group Philadelphia.

I hate to spread negativity, but this has to be the most boring and over-generalized post on social media I've read in a while.  Let's dig into these "lies."  1) Size does too matter.  From the number of connections on linkedin (allowing you to see more full profiles) to comparing conversions against email and PPC, Size can absolutely matter in social media.  It matters as least as much as other channels, like television or email lists or calling lists. This is one of those feel good statements with no analysis behind it.  2) The medium is the message - Flickr, YouTube, Facebook, Ning, Forums, email lists and television have different community expectations.  You can't be successful if you don't know those expectations and work with your community.  And it's another general comment with nothing on it.  Here's an example of how it's wrong.  Customers looking to get answers now look for Twitter and Facebook for company responses.  Prospects will often surf to a home page and click on links to social sites.  In both cases, the message is the medium.  They want to talk to you on those mediums.  The message is not important.  And btw - young people weren't the first to use Twitter.  They also weren't the first in blogs, which started this whole thing 10 years ago.    3.) Social Media Gurus Do Exist.  This is one of those really bad statements that is never backed up. Name a fraud in social media.  No one wants to, so they go vague.  Better yet, name a guru in any field, outside social media, and we'll show you how they're not, really.  There is plenty of experience in using social media successfully.  Social media has no more problem with experts than SEO, marketing, PR, TV, politics, science (yeah, you heard me), or child raising.  4) Social media started out being called new media because we differentiated blogs and social networking sites from "digital," which itself was differentiated from "Creative."  Aside from that, there's the truth that social media represented many-to-many communication, as opposed to one-to-many communication.  It was new because it enabled an audience to talk back, and to each other.   5) Social Media can be effectively outsourced to a PR firm.  How do you know this is a lie?  Successful PR firms don't brag about their work, but it happens all the time.  What is needed is full client access, but outsourcing works fine in many cases.  It works better than internal work if you're being brutally honest.  It doesn't work for everyone, but this is another example of a general statement that is nonsense, unsupported by fact, and generally harmful.  Coming from a guy offering Ghost Blogging services, this is the funniest statement of all.  Hey Mikal.  For a guy writing about the online world, you sure mailed this one in. 

Yes, Brandon, very true.  The fact is: it depends on the company.  For example, for #5, there are some companies that you can go in, set up their social media, and one or two people will embrace it and keep it going.  My experience is different from Mikail's.  In my experience, if it is not a communications-based company, in many cases the ball will get dropped, and they will not maintain their social media and other communications outreach consistently and effectively, without the support of a consultant or outside firm. No one in house will keep it rolling. Not in every case but for many -- I've seen this for small businesses and Fortune 500 firms, and even for PR agencies themselves.  Many companies are more than willing to have a social media firm or professional handle that part of the business for them.  I mean, you can cut your own hair, right?  But a stylist will do it better.

I'm glad to see these types of articles coming out now - next time you speak to a social media agency ask them what the ROI will be... Its brilliant engaging with your customers and setting up really cool fan pages but how much really leads to business and if you spent the huge amount of time and effort it takes to run an effective social media campaign on more traditional forms of advertising/ marketing/ content writing what would you receive by comparison?

u need a psycho - trust someone u dont know is essential. 

Great article. I especially agree with points 1 and 3. While a million followers may make you look more appealing to a random person, it doesn't necessarily translate into sales. Consumers have to stay engaged after they "like" your page, and they have to actually buy your product. Which is why the number of followers doesn't matter as much as the number of buyers who listed Facebook  as the reason they made a purchase. And on 3 it's hard for anyone to truly be a "Guru" in such a quickly evolving industry. Many of these sites are so trendy that you may be an expert in them today, but maybe tomorrow it's out (MySpace) or is completely changed (new company page layouts on Facebook). It's is truly learning on the job, as you say.

I actually think you both make good points. I find myself agreeing with both of you. For instance, size matters somewhat. The more followers you have, the more "clout" you have. But, if those followers aren't engaged, it won't matter how Many you have. I don't mean to play the neutral party, but I think the truth lies somewhere between both of your points.

Mary, The for sharing your thoughts. On point number one, size matters, I think we have to take into consideration that sure as 'if you build it, they will come' is a fallacy, so to is 'if they like, follow or watch, they will buy, evangelize, or continue to pay attention.' We all do it... like a brand on Facebook, follow a brand or business on Twitter, and watch and maybe even subscribe to a company's videos or channel on YouTube, but those actions do not necessarily equate to me or you or others buying from or doing business with the brand or business in question. When businesses place emphasis on these numbers, they're choosing to focus on the wrong thing. Is the number part of a broader equation? In some cases, yes, but not all. On point two about the medium, the only thing that's new here (from a medium perspective) is the potential for something to go viral and for it to be archived. People have been marketing conversationally over drinks and on street corners and in shops all across the world since down of business-to-consumer commerce. The same rules apply... be smart about what you say, be honest, transparency is of the utmost importance, encourage word of mouth, yada, yada. The message outweighs the medium because the message should have never changed to being with. Point three about 'gurus,' it's the notion that someone is an 'omniscient deity' in this line of work that I and so many others find disturbing. For me, 'guru' simply smacks the wrong sound, per se. It signifies that the person has 'followers;' followers who hold him or her out as being all-knowing, heroic, and unquestionable. Perhaps it's just me but I think 'guru' should be struck from the business lexicon altogether because it flies in the face of an inherently changing environment where one cannot possibly be held out as being all knowing. Point four, about 'new' media, I see it all the time, especially among people working in PR (they constantly attempt to separate social out of what they still consider 'mainstream' media, claiming to their followers/clients that there are special rules only they know about when pitching bloggers and websites). As for your objection with my take on working with an outside agency or PR firm to manage social, I did say its okay to work with third parties to set up a campaign and learn the ropes. Over the long term, however, companies and brands are more often capable and willing to mange these efforts in house, as doing so leverages the 'in the moment' nature and opportunities associated with brand communication via social channels, not to mention that it's more cost effective and a nimble.

Mary, fantastic comments. Point 1 is spot on. If you've ever been held to a sales quota or have had to rely on find/making sales to sustain a living, you know that sales can come from any direction. Building a vast network of followers can provide new opportunities that may not be fully realized with targeted or ideal followers/likes. Notwithstanding some recent articles and commentary, Groupon and livingsocial have expanded followers of companies that were never be seen. If we could all agree on what the metrics are for performing a successful social media strategy, I'm sure followers/likes would prove useful I get the sense that this article is more a debate on semantics vs substance of perceived myths. Nevertheless, it's noble to write and  post an article with the hopes of edifying an audience.

Interesting article mainly because it's sparked some real debate about social media! Here's my view as a digital marketing consultant: Point 1: Quality of followers and fans are important of course. Long gone are the days of building massive Twitter follower lists through the method of "follow to get followed". You might have a nice big list of followers but you might as well be selling sausages and doing a sales pitch to a bunch of vegans if your followers aren't your target market. That said there is strong evidence to suggest that search engines use key markers to determine authority and no doubt numbers of fans and followers are important. Thus the more followers you have the greater impact it'll have on your search engine rankings. Point 3: I think we should take "there's no such thing as a social media guru" as a tongue-in-cheek comment! I have to agree with the statement as I see countless "social media experts" popping up in my local area. Good on them for using the current buzz words to market their services but I also find it slightly annoying. The main reason is if you talk to some these people you find they actually have little experience in other forms of marketing. That's the biggest problem because getting social media right requires a bank of skills far beyond setting up a Twitter account and knowing how to retweet. I call myself a social media consultant because I have working in digital marketing for over 8 years and have worked with big name clients on their social media campaigns not because I know how to set up a blog on wordpress. Point 5: I believe this applies to smaller businesses and in some ways I am inclined to agree. The brilliant thing (and also its curse) about social media is its low barrier to entry. This makes it really easy for people to set up profiles and start communicating with customers. The caveat here is that business owners should be seeking advice on the whole process if they are to get it right. This is especially true of PR firms who have years of experience in communicating with customers. I have seen too many example of bad management when it comes to social media where business owners handle negative feedback so badly it only makes it worse! Anyone can do DIY but it's often good to get expert advice in some form before you start!

Loved the article - disagree however with No. 5.  If an out-sourced PR works closely with his/her client he/she is in as good a position to tweet or f/b on behalf of the company. A good PR should know her client and its brand inside out therefore is well-placed to communicate their message on a daily basis across the social mediums.

Well, I disagree with just about everything in this article.  1. Yes, quality followers count. You think it doesn't matter how many Facebook likes a brand has, or how many views a video has? Or Twitter followers? It does matter because that is how the message is shared, across many accounts.  It's just crazy to say it doesn't matter that much. 2. Right, the medium isn't the message, but the medium is really important. You can't take the same message across platforms because the medium is different and the audience is different. So the medium does SHAPE the way the message is communicated, and to whom. Video ain't Twitter.  Don't underestimate the importance of the attributes of the medium on the message. 3. There are no social media gurus or experts -- oh, yeah, there are. Expertise is the acquisition of knowledge and skills and demonstrated application and results over time. Lots of us have that to claim.  I consider myself an expert (not in the league of the top experts, certainly, but expert for my sphere) but I'm not claiming to be an omniscient deity! Expert is not a dirty word, and it's accurate, if people consult you and pay for your knowledge and skill sets. 4. I don't know that this is really an issue anymore, although it would be hard to argue with the fact that people under 35 do dominate the paid work in social media. 5. I laughed when I read this. Companies have been outsourcing their needs to PR firms for nearly a century, and now they outsource their social media. There are entire PR firms that do nothing but digital and social media management for other companies on a daily basis -- and they do it well.  Just because a company is good at building or selling cars doesn't mean they are fantastic communicators. And just because a communicator doesn't know how to build a car doesn't mean she can't convey the brand message and engage audiences.  The truth is, it's really a team effort, and it works beautifully, when it works.

Thank Gid for common sense article and down with "guru's"!

Good article, but social media is a very simple practice, simply engage and listen to your customers.

I have read quite a few posts recently that say blogging is on its way out and even more that say it isn’t. I think blogging is here to stay for a while because just like social media, people enjoy interactive platforms. I’m interested in your take on whether or not blogging is about to become a thing of the past and whether or not you can debunk the idea.

Dan: Thanks for weighing in. I don't doubt that there are specialists in this field. For me, 'guru' simply smacks the wrong sound, per se. It signifies that the person has 'followers;' followers who hold him or her out as being all-knowing, heroic, and unquestionable. Perhaps it's just me but I think 'guru' should be struck from the business lexicon altogether because it flies in the face of an inherently changing environment.As for your comment about my book, you're absolutely correct... the day we turned in the manuscript, the book was already somewhat outdated (like most online and social utilities and platforms, Facebook is a moving target).

Dan: Thanks for weighing in. I don't doubt that there are specialists in this field. For me, 'guru' simply smacks the wrong sound, per se. It signifies that the person has 'followers;' followers who hold him or her out as being all-knowing, heroic, and unquestionable. Perhaps it's just me but I think 'guru' should be struck from the business lexicon altogether because it flies in the face of an inherently changing environment. As for your comment about my book, you're absolutely correct... the day we turned in the manuscript, the book was already somewhat outdated (like most online and social utilities and platforms, Facebook is a moving target). 

It's all good in the end! I once worked with a Japanese scientist at Honeywell who, brilliant as he was, couldn't explain his way out of a wet paper bag. He jokingly said later on that I taught him how to "speak English" when it came to our products!

Julie: How would know if a PR firm does a better job than a company's own employees if the PR firm is the only entity doing the job? Putting that question aside though, I believe that PR and strategic comm firms can help businesses understand the landscape if in fact they themselves have mastered it to a degree, but to think they're 'more objective' when they report in to a CMO or other executive at the company they've been hired to work for is laughable. PR firms managing a client's social activities are anything but objective. The very fact that they're on contract and have specific goals and objectives to meet (number of likes, interactions, visits back to the company website, and the like) yields an approach that is often inauthentic and skewed, in my view. And to say that they can help companies "distinguish the issues and opportunities (raised in social media) from opinions that may not be felt by the majority" fails to recognize in-house talent's ability to do this as well (especially those who lead and work in service/tech support and are on the front lines day in and day out, and have been for years).

You raise a good point. As I shared in a reply above, I don't doubt that there are professionals/consultants who --as you say -- have a lot of knowledge surrounding what works and doesn't. For me, 'guru' simply smacks the wrong sound, per se. It signifies that the person has 'followers,' followers who hold him or her out as being all-knowing and heroic. Perhaps it's just me but I think 'guru' should be struck from the business lexicon because it flies in the face of an inherently changing environment.

I don't doubt that there are people who are 'really good' at it. For me, 'guru' simply smacks the wrong sound, per se. It signifies that the person has 'followers,' followers who hold him or her out as being all-knowing and heroic. Perhaps it's just me but I think 'guru' should be struck from the business lexicon because it flies in the face of an inherently changing environment.

Hey there, Barbara! What you say here is so true (that longevity doesn't matter). Moreover, the space is ridiculously fluid, and the rapid we navigated today is as different as one snowflake is to another. Thanks for weighing in!

Hear, hear Ben! Thanks for weighing in. Great stuff.

Thanks, @junteet. Were all learning as we go.

Excellent point, Kirk. I too have run across company personnel who simply do not have the skill set or sensitivity to communicate appropriately via the medium. That said, I've always been able to work alongside them and bring them up to speed in fairly short order.

Very well stated, Mikal. The only point I might quibble with is # 5. I agree that your own people know more about (or SHOULD know more about) your products and services. What they may not be so well versed in is the communication of that knowledge. I would advise taking a VERY close look at the capabilities of your staff members from the perspective of a total outsider and determine if the way in which they are crafting messages and expressing unique selling points is going to be understood by a total stranger. I've worked as a PR professional both in-house and as a consultant. The ability to take "company-speak" and turn it into "common folks' language" is a true artform...not happenstance.

Great article, Mikal! You spelled out the realities and the role of marketing and media.  I bet the 'day dreamers in the social media' would not like these facts that you enumerated.  Keep up the great works in keeping the role of a truthful and great message from the superficial socially bended messages.

It's more to do with Barbara's quote above.. it's not about "Guru Status" anyone who's 'been in the game' long enough (myself for 15 years since I was 15), have seen the rise and fall of "proven tactics" it's about being current, not about being the best, imho.

Great post Mikal.  I've been doing a lot of reading on this topic (several blogs, Social Media ROI, Oliver Blanchard, Socialnomic, Eric Qualman to name a few) and i'm thinking maybe you could add a couple more lies to your list: 1) Its cheap - err no it isn't. Financially you may not need to invest that much if you go with the most basic of basic programs but in terms of time, to merely tickle the sides of doing it well, you're going to need to invest quite a bit. Relationships aren’t formed over night or by typing 3 tweets a day. As we all know, time = money. 2) It's easy.  Hell no! The life blood of social media is trust, relationships, conversations and dialogue.  Merely pushing out marketing messages a la the old days of vertical communication are gone. Approach your audience in the same manner in their lateral channels and you'll frustrate / annoy.  If more that 10-15% of what you’re broadcasting in the digital social space is promotional and or sales marketing you're not quite getting it. You need to converse with your audience - on their turf, on their terms and in their lingo. You've got to give, give, give, take. Give give give some more and then maybe take a little bit again. 3) Anyone can do it. Again, no they can't.  I completely agree about keeping it in-house but don't trust everyone will be able to pick up these new tools and start running with them straight away.  It takes a certain profile i.e. you need people who are inherently sociable with the common sense to respond to situations should they become a little awkward e.g. if a swell of negative comments and mentions are identified etc.  Some folks will need training; social media policies should be formulated and included in the learning your social media / community representatives / managers etc should receive – And this is just the start. If I may be so bold I would like to finish with this point, which isn't so much of another lie for your list but more of a vital lesson: There is a lot of info, blogs, "how to" material out there centred on the art of broadcasting your messages.  Like with all forms of communication - the true art is in how well you listen. Before you think about your content and transmission strategies think about how you're going to check and analyse what people are saying about you then think about how you'll respond once you’ve assessed your findings (and in some cases how you’re going to do this in real-time [scary stuff for some]).  As with the basic premise of all marketing.  Listen out for what your consumers want and provide them with it.  If you start broadcasting without conducting the vital step of listening you could end up publishing stuff your audience don't want or care for... And what will that say about your brand? Regards Ben (A social recruitment expe.... ahem, enthusiast!)

Please delete this comment. I made a mistake and didn't know how to remove it. Apologies

Well said, Lee. I'll add that social media is just another vehicle  for communicating. A successful social media program, like any effective communications program, requires planning, goal setting, measurement and most important, RELEVANT CONTENT  - all things that an experienced public relations professional is trained to provide.

I like the article. I think it made some very good points, especially regarding gurus. The unfortunate thing about being in the business is that longevity doesn't matter. Social media is constantly evolving and changing-and so we must, also. If you don't you'll just be a social media historian. It's got to be a labor of love and you've got to care about your customer, and if you don't have quality content going and a conversation there really is nothing in place. I know one person that is actually bought into a 'Social Media Certification Program'. I mean, really....come one......

Are we saying that there are no social media gurus, or that we all just dont agree on who they are? And if someone says they, they're probably not...? LinkedIn has nearly 800 people in the US that bill themselves as social media gurus, and thousands of "social media experts". Surely someone in there has to be pretty good at this.

Do you think that -- what I call "dancing monkeys" -- are helpful in on-line advertising? I am referring to the images that move about (in an annoying and negatively distracting fashion in my opinion) on pages that one visits on the Internet.

I must say great article but I do have a strong disagreement re: Myth #3 "social media gurus exist". I've just started my own business as a social media consultant/web designer. Sure I'm not exactly a guru but I do have a lot of experience and have a lot of knowledge regarding what works and what doesn't on each platform. I think that if anyone calls themselves a guru in any business clients should be leary but there are people out there who can help better a business.  What i'm saying is that your statement is quite generalized and doesn't really give a well rounded explanation of businesses/people specializing in Social Media.

I think the other main 'myth' that surrounds social media is that it's free.  A lot of people talk about the free marketing that is available through using the social media channels such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, and this is one main attraction for small business owners.  However, as we all know, to do it properly requires an investment of time and also a commitment to keep doing it (whether it be blogging or updating a micro-blog such as Twitter).  With the increase in channels (such as Quora and Google Plus) this time commitment will only increase. The point about the social media gurus, or should I say lack of, is I believe valid up-to a point.  There are no 'experts' in social media yet but there are people who have a greater understanding and who can possibly help.  As with all consultants though I would advise that any potential client undertakes a rigorous background check of them and asks for references before appointing.

I disagress with poiint #5. PR firms often do a better job of managing social media for clients than the clients themselves. The client knows more about his/her business and operations, but the PR consultant understands communication as well as the need for clarity and transparency. They can help clients distinguish the issues and opportunities (raised in social media) from opinions that may not be felt by the majority. Also, the PR counselor is more objective.

Social Marketing Guru aka Snail Oil Salesman...? lol - I think there are some people that know more about it than others, but guru, seriously who calls themselves that anyway? I akin social media to glass houses. You want to put your business out onto the wild frontier of 21st century communication where the pitfalls haven't even been discovered yet - well hey the best way to learn is the hard way I guess for some. Go right ahead - the rest of us will watch and take notes while the public throws rocks at your glass houses...

On the last note, although I agree those inside your building know the most, it also must be said that it is essential to have great writers executing social media. Thus, 'outsourcing to a PR firm' may be in many/some clients' best interests.

Agreeing with some of the points.. and much of the criticisms. Quality over quantity sure, but if no one sees the quality then .. no one sees it; it's about smart growth not random 'likes' from those outside of the target audiences. Experts and outside help; not every company can afford a full-time accountant, lawyer, designer, web programmer, etc. And yet they can work closely with these professionals to outsource what they need; if they find the right SM consultant, it can work. Sometimes management can be more comfortable sharing details w/ trusted 'outsiders' than they can their own staff. Technology is a tool, networks are the platform.. true enough; but you can't ignore the differences there vs. your own website and other communications tactics. What works on your website and blog may not on your FB page and with reason; those messages are reaching a different audience, need to be targeted accordingly. FWIW.

I'd like to see the death myth debunked.  In my view many are much too quick to declare things dead as soon as something new comes along. 

I want to make a comment specifically about Twitter. Remember everyone on twitter can see your interactions if they follow you. What happens when your competitors start following you? What happens when your suppliers start following you? Of course you want your customers following you. So what happens when all three parties can see each other? Think about it!

Love this article! Great to see it admitted that "Social media gurus really do exist. No, they don't" and "Social media is 'new' media-NOT". I think those of us over the age of 40 have been intimidated into believing we're not as "with it" as the generations who were bottle fed and grew up with Social Media. With marketing, messages still need to get out. Your success is determined by content and how/where you do it but anyone (any age) can learn the secrets of success AS social media continues to develop. We're all newbies to this game.

It's been said a couple of times here but what are comment threads for if not to add your $.02 so here goes:  The third point is simply hyperbole and lacks merit as a whole.  While it's true that small businesses would be better off running their marketing themselves in order to add a significant level of authenticity, it's not always feasible, or even possible, for them to do so.  In my practice, I seek to empower small business owners to take charge of their social media presence but not all of them want to do so with some preferring to simply allow someone else (me) to do it for them.  As to the rest of your points, I also have to disagree with #4 as social media creates a new dynamic that's never existed in the history of marketing:  Real time customer to business communications.  Up to the advent of social media, marketing's essentially been a one-way street but now businesses - and marketers - need to understand how to adapt and react on the fly.  If this isn't "new" then I'm clearly confused. Your other points are salient enough but the overt hyperbole is enough to turn me off the message as a whole.

I think the general message is just "get on with it".  No excuse not to dive in and make connections.

the myth I would like to see debunked is that social media marketing means that phones don't matter. People see your marketing and still might want to make a call to find out more about you. Put a phone number on your site! There are some great companies that give you smart phone numbers with call tracking, routing, analyzing, etc capabilities like IfByPhone and others. You need to let your clients talk to you if you want to close deals. 

Thanks,Nice short piece. Mikal great article finally we are getting some good writing on the subject and people are not afraid to speak the truth about it and express opinions. You are right on point.

Good article and agree on several points but will have to respectfully disagree on a few. I do believe there are social media experts, just as there are marketing experts, sales experts, public relations experts, legal experts, accounting and tax experts...well, you get the drift. It seems there's a slight bent to the article to appease the 'naysayers' of social media - that it's just a fad, nobody is really an expert so the reader can feel comfortable that they don't really 'get' social media and implying social media/emerging media specialists are just selling snake oil - run for the hills!  It's like another other aspect of running a business -- wouldn't a business owner rather be 'doing' their business not, say, balancing the books, rummaging through human resources paperwork, creating their own legal documents, dealing with radio & TV stations for annual buys? It's really the same situation. Many companies either 1. hire employees dedicated solely to those tasks and ensure they have experience, properly trained and attend educational seminars to stay up on it -OR - they 2. Outsource those duties to experienced professionals. I've seen too many instances of social media being handed over to the 'receptionist' or the 'customer service manager', or, worse, the owner tries to do it 'in their spare time' without any formal social media training -  they can't do simple things such as link stories, upload pictures, videos, correctly credit someone else on Twitter or Facebook and forget responding promptly to customers who seek them out on those outlets. It's like crickets chirping out there.  True, nothing can replace a well-versed and experienced marketing/public relations person and great marketing plan, but if they don't even know what a RETWEET is, how can they navigate a social media campaign? I've also seen many experienced 'old-school' marketing director's forays into social media become ineffective whimpers or, worse, disasters. Just as in any industry, you have to stay current on best practices and it would be arrogant to think you know all there is to know about your industry. No one will ever know it all. I do agree that social media jobs aren't for just for the 35 and under group, but, overwhelmingly, they seem to be the ones that are embracing it, learning it, and understand its impact into our every day lives and economy. #Justsaying.

I own a social media fulfillment company and find item 3 fairly ignorant and offensive. At what point are people like you going to stop social bashing and allow those, who do this day in and out, to call themselves specialists in their field? 1 year, 3 maybe? Some of the above makes sense but no.3 is a cheap, out-of-date, link-baity shot Mikal. Your book 'The Complete Idiot's Guide To Facebook' isn't totally correct, you're only a partial idiot ;)

Would that all the hotshots follow your lead.  No self-promotion, no initial caps, no misplaced possessives, fine grammar and spelling, no exclamation points.  And would that all the business hiring managers placing ads for social gurus finally figure out that no one has five or ten years experience (who isn't learning on the job).  And if they do, they're over 25. 

This is exactly how I feel about social media, I guess great minds think alike, (joke, but i do believe everything in this article is correct)

Come on Mikal, 5 "Lies" about Social Media, don't you think that's a bit dramatic. It is fair to say there is a great deal of confussion and misunderstanding on how to effectively use Social Media as part of your marketing program. Point (1) I agree 100% it is about quality not quantity. Point 2 is obvious and not a major issue. Most businesses understand this. But, on this issue I agree. Point 3 again is dramatic. Let's face it there are far more supposed marketing "gurus" or self-help "gurus" in the world than Social Media ones. But, there are firms out there that can offer businesses Social Media expertise and experience that is valuable. Point 4 is little confusing, first you say it isn't new then you say it is. I agree it is "media", but it certainly is still evolving. But to say that calling it new is a myth or a lie I don't know. Point 5 is just not accurate. I acknowledge there are some companies that have been "hosed" by firms that are focusing just on this medium, but there are also many success stories as well. It can be done well and in context with a full marketing plan. Ideally it should and could be handled in-house, but often times it just isn't getting done and having an out sourced option is better that no presence at all. The bottom line is this medium in still evolving and caution is adviced both in using and making blanket statements about

Why the repulsion toward someone identifying themselves as a guru? Maybe they have results to substantiate their claim, and the references to back it. Maybe by calling themselves a guru it's just another way to market their company/services, which is at the very least savvy if not necessary. Additionally, the Utopian world where small businesses only seek out consultants to create and execute a marketing strategy seems to be a dream of marketers. If this is indeed uncharted waters, it seems noble that a small business owner would attempt to form his/her own social media plan, if for no other reason than not having the budget, network or necessity to hire a consultant to do it for them. my $.02

So many things wrong with this article... social media is "new" media, actually. Good job changing the definition of "new" for your purposes though, very effective for making your point.  Of course everyone can be educated users of this "new" media; that doesn't change the fact that it's less than a decade old and being refined almost daily. 

I'm also glad to see such a well-structured argument supported by objective research. Sometimes discussions on the Internet quickly lead to sensationalism but you're an expert on this matter, so when you say something is "downright dangerous" I know it's an important warning and that you're not just being melodramatic like everyone else on the Internet. It's really good that you can explain in plan English. I was getting worried that social media was destroying spelling, grammar and our capacity for language, but now I see that's not the case. Phew. Thank you for your refreshing comments.

Gary Vaynerchuk said it best "99.5 Percent Of Social Media Experts Are Clowns"

Nice short piece but point 3 is misleading, trite and unhelpful, if not downright dangerous. a) Time management.  The main reason people outsource is they do not possess the expertise and do not have sufficient time to invest in learning about how to do it "on the job".  I have argued that people must invest some time in learning about social media, since you can not manage what you do not understand, but learning to manage and learning to do are two very different propositions.  Elance and other per hour portals are full of advertisements looking for people to become virtual SMO assistants. b) Learning on the job, online is a very dangerous way to learn.  Mistakes made whilst learning on the job and online have a nasty habit of being very expensive in terms of reputation, time, money, brand etc.  c) Scope.  The massively expanding and rapidly changing nature of online marketing means that you could spend forever trying to catch up to the "cutting edge" and never get close.  I am trying to keep abreast of twitter and find that even this single area is moving so fast it is hard to keep tabs on it. I find the whole argument about guru and "thought leaders" (remember them?) tiresome.  The reasons my clients ask for help is because I can add value, by explaining it to them in plan English, by illustrating real case studies in their industries, by offering options for pilots and tests to let them learn on a tiny budget and without exposing them / their brand to ridicule or disaster.  I am no fan of gurus, but the notion that anyone can have a go at social media / online marketing and succeed... is just embarrassingly naive.  For every one person who does succeed, I guarantee there are ten who fail and get burned very badly.

Fantastic! What a great, concise recap of what social media marketing IS and IS NOT! Really great stuff.

 The myth about marketing I would like to see debunked is that print is dead.... Not true and never will be.

I love your insights here, especially on the part of these so-called social media gurus, experts, ninja... or whatever you call them these days.  If there's one myth I'd like to debunk is that social media marketing is free.  WRONG.  You can definitely sign up to social media platforms for free, but it will cost you money to hire people who will spread the word about your brand.

This is an absolutely fascinating article. I even read through all the comments. I started my business over 25 years ago, society was on the dawn of a P.C. in your home. There was no social media, how ever did we business owners existed let alone prosper without the ability to social sites. We worked, we presented ourselves upfront and in person. We wrote thank you notes promptly, and like me many of us relaid on " WORD OF MOUTH" I have never used a PR anything I have never even advertized. I offer a service that speaks for itself and with he incentive for my clients to refer us, in exchange for free three hours or credit toward next use. All my billboards and print ads, and mass mailings are nonexistent by simply staying the course of offering the best and always doing ones' best. Though I believe we all enjoy leaving a comment or two on these or this site for example, do we ever really know who see's it or reads it?  Or if anyone even does. Social media to me ='s forum of self expression. Suzette Trimmer Owner Your Other Hands   

I would just add: The social presence of an organization must be its natural extension, supported in its business and organizational architecture, broadcasted by its people. I am sorry but it is as difficult as this. Hope not for imediate results. Aim for lasting achievements.

Só acrescento: A presença social de uma organização tem que ser a sua extensão organizacional, suportada na sua arquitectura, colocada no terreno pelas suas pessoas. Lamento mas é tão difícil quanto isto.

I have to agree, Dan. Our agency offers complete management for our clients, but we are a full-service advertising agency, so not only do we handle their 'traditional media,' but we've now integrated social media, as well. Most of our clients are small businesses who don't have the time or the money to hire someone in-house...and considering we are doing everything else, they TRUST that we know their business enough to post informative information. I really think the key word is TRUST. If they trust you to market their business in other ways, why wouldn't they trust that you are qualified to manage their social media? We also always leave the option open for them to take it over themselves...in every single case that we've had, 90% of them appreciate the arrangement and have remained clients and the other 10% take it over themselves and it eventually falls apart...prompting them to come back.  I will say that we always are asking for information from the business owner & have very in-depth meetings throughout the month in order to carry out whatever is asked of us, but our clients are more than willing to spend that short amount of time with us in order for them to have more time to do what they need to do: run their business.I also agree that there are no 'experts' in this field. I call myself a 'social media student.' I'm forever learning about this emerging medium. Which also leads back to the trust thing. If you hire someone in-house, who has no experience or who doesn't know the ins and outs of this particular medium, you risk losing more in the long run.