Why Big Corporations Are Putting the Brakes on Social Media

cost... that simple. For a small firm the PR that comes for social is small but free. If as a startup you could access TV and other mass media you would. Even search seems expensive when you see how fast you burn through you budget and how few clicks it generates. Social can get you going for a tiny fraction of the cost

There was a time; my Granny tells me that there used to be well. We used to draw water from this well by the rusty bucket, drink this and still were happy. No one told us, “Please do not drink as many mouths, rats, cockroaches have fallen in this and it is too late and too slow.” However we are becoming wiser and we bottle the same water in the plastic bottles and label these with advertisements and how much Ph, sodium etc is in these and these have the seal of the Government to testify that the water is pure and safe for drinking. Do we really check this? I doubt. We have been told that the water is good and is on the table. The politicians are like that. They know we see the TV and take their words for granted. If EURO is late and slow, we are told now, “Guys/Dolls, you have had a lousy politician who misled you. Now I have come to solve these problems and in time. There nothing like impossible. We are still on track” I see this not. Do I complain? Nope. I am told, “Yes remember the USA has gained few employments that is a good sign” Look I am not in USA and I detest the story of Iran or any. I am interties in I, me. I am like all human, no different. So, why do I have to listen EURO was slow, and I am going to lose a lot of cash. The reason I say this is simple, We have not reached the solution but all keep on hammering, “We are in a double dip”. Can we have one, only one honest politician who can tell us where exactly we are and what we expect in next year?  I thank you Firozali A.Mulla DBA

I'm thinking social media may best be used as a feedback loop for large companies with new or developmental products. Whereas tech companies successsfully used 'beta testers' within their 'user groups' to fine-tune products before they are released to the public, consumer product companies can look at social media as a way to make sure their products truly win with consumers.

Very true! Short term, large companies have a lot to lose in engaging with a community. It needs a lot of courage and patience to pursue that path. A mid-size ratings company we interacted with, said that being on a public forum like Facebook will suck out the energy and bandwidth of the top management in no time.

Social is a double edge sword. You can get engagement but you can also get an angry mob raging your way. On top of that, the ways to track social media success look much more meek compared to other media channels. Social media is best used for lean companies who can take many more risks since they are an unknown. Large corporations are probably completely baffled by social media platform that changes rapidly. The only comparative experience companies can relate to is internal marketing communications. That can only spell doom to many a heavy hitter.

cost... that simple. For a small firm the PR that comes for social is small but free. If as a startup you could access TV and other mass media you would. Even search seems expensive when you see how fast you burn through you budget and how few clicks it generates. Social can get you going for a tiny fraction of the cost

You're going to be called out on "bad products and services" on social media whether you're using it or not. The difference is, if you're on social media you can monitor it and respond accordingly.

Smaller companies may have fewer options than larger ones due, in no small way, to smaller budgets which make sustained use of other media a bit more challenging. Smaller companies may also be more agile about deciding to commit to and manage their social media. On the other hand, larger companies are more likely to have an integrated approach to marketing communications and can shift their weight in the communications channels without going dark. The suggestion that large companies place less importance on open communications with customers may be too easy a conclusion. I'd suggest it's not a lack of importance so much as the added complexity of managing it.

I hope it is not necessary to involve all the companies in the social media. But it would be more helpful to those companies if they maintain social media.

Social media (ie blogs, tweets, community experience, profiles) may be used to create "relationship" with the customer. Whether that actually does anything for sales for real is unknown for large or small business as far as I know. What we do know from our work is that large companies are looking to these types of technologies to improve internal team processes, communications, and ideation -- and to provide to their own customers in products. What we have found is that when these platforms are used to create quick communication between know people collaborating--they provide value; when products try to create artificial communities of unknown professionals it is generally rejected by users who already have a trusted community; and when companies try to promote internal networking or team collaboration -- it's reception is mixed. We need to know why and when these technologies are useful and valuable to the people in business--then we can make good decisions as businesses and as product designers. This is why we at InContext promote customer-centered design techniques for making these choices.

Not all companies should be involved in Social Media. These statistics don't mean much when you consider my last point. What if you provide products or services to other businesses instead of consumers? And if you have a handful of large customers that you're already closely communicating with, what the heck can a Twitter account offer? Even on the flip side when you're serving the public at large, you may not want to engage customers over Twitter, especially if you have established service departments and processes. Social media is only a tool in your toolbox-know when to use it. Henry http://SearchRespect.com

I couldn't have said it better myself Judy!

Does the staffer that is tasked with updating the Facebook account, tweeting, Foursquaring, etc, etc get paid nothing? Is the computer he or she works on free, the software, the utilities, the insurance, the management expense, on and on... There is a cost, and without a return, Social media marketing (heck any media without a return) will fail every time.

dear entrepreneur, i'd like to see an article from you that's a little more objective and media agnostic. the author (a facebook expert) adds his own opinion on why fortune 500 companies are letting SM fall by the wayside, but he never suggests that it may be because it's not effective for them. the fortune 500s that i've worked with have strong, strategic, ROI-driven marketing programs and don't tolerate media that does not perform. has the author considered that they've tried and tested it and found it to be a waste of resources? ....

it's not free if you consider opportunity cost. and logically that does not make sense. a smaller company would have a lot more to lose by "being called out on bad products and services" than a large one.

Duh, it's free! Smaller companies, can't afford advertising, so the best way to get known and seen in on social media sites. Big Companies tend to fear being called out on issues or bad products and services... 

The smaller companies have yet to find out that social media did not improve business prospects.

well which is it? are they putting the brakes on it (intentional) or neglecting it (unintentional)? this story doesn't make sense. big companies are realizing that SM does not deliver ROI like traditional customer acquisition tools such as email marketing. small companies are still clinging to it because they think it's a magic bullet, and they think it's free (both wrong).

Why do smaller companies use social media more than larger firms? It's simple. They know their customers better. They see them in person more often. They want to engage them. When they add a post that they have written themselves, they don't have a poster with the face of a proxy customer hanging on the wall. They have in their minds the actual people they serve. It's real to them and less of a game.

Hello, Perhaps the border separates BtoC and BtoB companies, more than big and small ones. The BtoC, often larger than the BtoB, have less control over their public relations, more easily prone to rumor and effects of negative buzz. They need a more concentrated communication plan. In the BtoB world, conversation has less risk.

I m not a social media guru.I dont know the theories of the the social media.The only thing I keep in mind while on the social network is that social media is not for making money!!!Its for making friends.This is one3 of the major point which lacks in the big firms.there may be many reasons...Viz..Lack of time and profit.Moreover, it takes time to ber a good friend of people and for generating trust.According to me this is the major reason due to which the big firms neglect social media!!!!

Simple, ROI. SM is just the next fad. frankly it's static noise that what loud at first (a few years ago) has begun to be tuned out.  When was the last time you went to your favorite brand's webpage, facebook page or Tweet? As well, in such a large corp - managing the crafting of posts or tweets to ensure the are compliant with brand identity is too burdensome. For a small firm it's much easier and more effective.

The numbers in this story don't make sense--2008 = 16%, 2009 = 22%, 2011 = "Less than a quarter" or "the same percentage as reported last year" ... seems like a positive trend.  Also, the use of Twitter up 2% over last year. Managing a FB page has gone from 56% to 58% ... another positive trend. 

Innovators are by definition trying to solve a challenge in a new and at times "disruptive" way. Large companies are not where you find innovation. SM would be more inline with smaller innovative companies than larger corporations. Thanks Mikal Paul

The reason that smaller companies use Social Media as a primary focus of their marketing activity is because it does not cost anything for the most part. It does work well in business environments where a firm has a smaller niche target audience due to the dialog nature of the media. Larger organizations that try to use many of tools cannot customize the dialog to suit the needs of a narrow market and so their communication appears too corporate, canned and irrelevant.

Honestly big companies have input more resource and man power to achieve the goal of two way communication than SME because of their complicated internal communication. Any improper news come out, they have to spend lots of time to handle, not cost effective. But the trend of using new media to connect with consumers is true.

This is to be expected - there was this tidal wave of adoption for this approach to marketing and communications and then the 80% drown and the 20% shine and reap the benefits of their innovation and commitment.

For me big companies make use of their brand name and mostly settle to the traditional ways of advertising , while small businesses , unable to handle such a competition, turn to what the internet has to offer and specifically social media.

Are these not the same massive corporations that also contributed to the 'Great Recession'  through banking and financial institutions whose polices and procedures, lobbying and irresponsible mortgage lending decisions led to the demise of the housing market that caused the fortitude of our problems?  How about the Execs at AIG taking millions in bonuses while their clients paid for the bailout the Execs should have been in charge of preventing.  Its like something out of a Dilbert cartoon I can imagine the conference disscusions at the Executive level 'Executive 1: well, it appears our management has led to what could be the demise of our company now what are we going to do?  Executive 2: Good question, but what I really want to know is will we still get are bonuses?  Executive 1:  Its in our contracts so we will.  Executive 2:  Won't that look bad for us and the company?  Executive 2:  Good point.  Well, its obvious the only think we can do is take as many millions as we can and let someone else figure out how to fix our mistakes.  Its the right thing to do.' How about Countrywide's CEO Angelo giving specialty discount rates to the politicians in exchange for the deregulation of lending policies that were sure to fail and yet no one did anything about it. In college Marketing I was taught the 4 P's, I think adding the 5th is just what we need to bring back the Integrity and Service companies once had of which I've watched consistently regress for the past 20 years

I can definitely relate to both of those points.  The company I work for is technically mid-size...I think.  About $250 million in annual sales.  I'm still not sure it top execs ever see our blog or at what level they care about its existence.

Smaller businesses and solo-preneurs are closer to their customers, so social media is a genuine communication tool.  Communication is always P to P (person to person) regardless of the technology.

One of those things that remind me of that saying: "ignore at your own peril"

This ifnormaiton is off the hizool!

because they can. Smaller companies have less legalities to content with (as mentioned in the article). arger firms are also well established in the marketplace, while smaller firms are still seeking brand recognition strategies which social media provides an excellent platform for.

there might be good reasons for this.  IMHO, social media engagement need to be top down, rather than bottom up.. especially for big corporations, as social media executives would need to be 'empowered' to engage, escalate, and hopefully resolve potential challenges.. (otherwise, it would just be lip service, which would be counter productive, and created many faux pas..) but in big corporations, the leaders are generally not really that 'secure' (unless they founded the firm and/or have majority ownership, i.e. tenure not certain, but even so, maximum 3-6years) ... thus, opportunity cost dictates that they should put most energy into  1.) growing the company top & bottom line (esp. for listed firms) 2.) doing the internal & external politics 3.) looking at doing more M&A (either for real growth or to confuse market/shareholders) than investing into social media.. and sadly, bigger the firm, the more  'old school' the leaders are.. some top guys I know now still don't do their own emails, but with their daily schedules managed down to 10/15minutes slots.. therefore, not likely they would be able to use let alone understand the need of social media...  At the end of the day though, surely this is great opportunities for the smaller/mid size firms as they can use social media to level the playing field.  in fact this is a great status quo, maybe not so for the sudden arrival of multitude of social media experts/gurus who are trying to sell their services.. ;-)  just a thought. @GarethWong:twitter  @CXOEurope:twitter 

JeffScott2009 has a great point. If the "old boys" can't analyze it from top to bottom and how it all affects the bottom, or top line, for that matter, they are less likely to justify Social Media , or as much Social Media, as an expense for the next year's budget.  The social media ban for employees in large companies is also a huge factor in that if the employees are not engaging, that leaves it to just the marketing department, if at all. Whereas in the smaller companies you are more likely to find whole teams, versus "departments," tweeting away about their company or the industry or their products and/or services with customers and clients and colleagues.

We use as many forms of social media as we can. Twitter, Facebook, etc. to make sure that our users can connect with us through their preferred method. Plus it's also standard with the younger generations. As a 26 marketing guy at http://www.bigmarker.com (a free web conferencing and social media mash up), I crave using social media. It's a more personal way to connect compared to the Web 1.0 sites that most Fortune 500 companies have. But then again, does a giant oil conglomerate, steel magnate, or shipping line tyrant need a blog entry about hating Mondays?

I think this article is spot on.  I have worked in a senior role at a Fortune 500 company (running a $500MM business unit for them) and can appreciate that legal teams and corporate branding concerns often shut down any participation efforts.  I now run my own company called SkinnyScoop, which is a woman's virtual cheat sheet for everything.  Women find and share the things they love and want via personal polls and user-generated lists.  A great example is this list of wedding planning sites and resources created by a women who is also a blogger - http://www.skinnyscoop.com/list/beyondbananas/top-websites-for-wedding-planning Companies large and small would be wise to engage with these women since they control 85% of the purchase power and are in decision-making mode when they use SkinnyScoop.  To date we have many smaller or mid-sized companies using our platform but larger companies will take time to woo and convince.  You are so right - customer engagement happens anyway.  Better for a company to know what is being said about them, who their evangelists are and who is not happy with them.

Good article. Probably accurate. My experience suggests there are many aspects of major corporations that make "Participation" difficult for them on every level and at every stage of the change process.

Simply put, I think bigger companies are scared to death of the "T" word. Yes, I'm speaking about "Transparency". When the decision is made to enter social media, companies must realize that, with the decision, also comes the release of control (or perceived control) of their marketing. Smaller enterprises have less to hide and more to gain using social media. For larger companies, it's the inverse right now. The automotive companies are a good example of big companies learning social and beginning to get it right. Listen, Engage, Learn, Evolve. Social Media at its best...  

For every Large Corp that doesn't embrace Social Media, 2 more of their fiercest competitors will.  

I think it's because small companies do not have their own in-house social media package.  I recently worked with a large company(12,000 people) and they had a in-house developed social media package that looked/worked a lot like Facebook.  It was used to connect people through out organization on work related issues.  People shared ideas on how to solve work related business problems.  This connected work groups across the corporation who normally did not report to each other.  But were doing similar work related tasks.  It also allowed the creation of 'hobby' related groups.  i.e digital photography, reading, fitness etc. The CEO was a big supporter of the package and was frequently involved.   

From my own experience in a corporation, I think the real problem that is faced is that they don't know how to stream down to a single point of view for a blog. There are so many fingers in th pie, so many internal stakeholders, that it is difficult to allow someone to say something in public without being bogged down in gaining authorisation from many internal stakeholders....

I would add that there is another dimension not mentioned in this report, a lack of a social media strategy.  No strategy leads to poor results.  As a result large companies stick with what they know.  However, these large companies are going to find a need to get into social media for a different reason, finding talent.  A report from George Washington University demonstrates that as the pool of available college graduates declines and requirements grow companies will be forced to pay higher salaries to attract and retain college graduates.  However, companies with a good "employer brand"  will attract and retain employees and reduce the required costs.  Social media will be a big part of aiding this element to a companies branding strategy.   http://DavidALee.com

Great post.  I think bigger and older companies demand more strength in statistical measurement in ROI in sales growth with their investments.  But this reasoning can also be a cloud to some of the softer issues.  First - the fear of legal exposure to a stray of inadvertent comment to consumers.  Second - the discomfort of senior managers who lack personal expertise and understanding.   Bob Clark  24kmarketing.com

Many times, smaller companies are quicker to adopt pioneering marketing methods - like social media.  They likely have created less internal bureaucracy and could be in an earlier phase of building a brand.  

I believe the reason for this is simple. Large companies have a lot of corporate governance and require approval by too many people to get anything done. Smaller companies just do as they see best for their business. small companies are still creating a brand and what better way then to use social media, while large companies have already created their brand. To summarize this all is: The higher you are the easier it is to fall!

Smaller companies are hungrier.  Bigger companies need to engage or the smaller companies will eat their lunch.

Smaller companies are likely focusing more on social media's ability to really build brand name, awareness, and reputation. While some larger companies see and use this opportunity, others may feel that they don't need to, as they already have enough brand recognition from their current processes (of which they likely feel they maintain more control over as well). Some large companies are afraid to let employees be brand ambassadors and look at it from the "what can go wrong, will" aspect. These companies don't seem to realize, as stated in the article, that people can and will talk about their brand online, whether the company is online monitoring it or not. It is better to have a handle on what is being said, as well as the ability to be part of what is being said about your company online, than to hide, head in the sand, and ignore the new sphere of conversation. 

Very nice post, Mikal. I believe smaller companies utilize social platforms like Facebook and Twitter more often than their "better-know brethren" for a few reasons. You noted the first in your post: "Smaller companies place more importance on open communication with customers." The second is that smaller companies (especially small local companies) need to build brand recognition any way they can. And the third, in my experience, is that employees at smaller companies tend to have greater investment in the company and, therefore, tend to take more of an interest in its success. In response to your comment, Brian, if it's true larger companies don't see the ROI of participating in social platforms, their head honchos need to revisit Groundswell by Charlene Li and Josh Bernoff. The book outlines several instances where companies stopped negative customer chatter in its tracks by going social. Dell product PR person Lionel Menchaca, for example, smoothed over unending negative customer communication by acknowledging Dell's flaws on a company blog. Big companies can't ignore that their customers are engaging in social platforms. And they can't just occasionally listen to them either. They need to embrace their audience, or lose their Fortune 500 rankings.

Larger organizations like compliance and control. I worked at a place that turned off web browsing on smartphones and blocked access to LinkedIn! A friend at a bank had the camera in his smartphone turned off.  Social media empowers, which can frighten control freaks. By shackling themselves and using social media in lifeless ways, big business is giving the rest of us a huge competitive edge. Let's use it.

I think smaller companies use Social Media because they understand that relationships build loyal customers. People like to feel they matter and SM gives them an opportunity to "bond" with a company, even if its not in their neighborhood. If a customer is unhappy, the way a company handles that can not only win that customer for life but the loyalty of all those watching.

Larger Orgs are run by the old boy network who think that splashing all the marketing budget on TV and publications is king. Larger orgs also ban social media in offices due to the time wastage (in their eyes) a lack of understanding from the top down. This will change as more solid data emerges from analysis of Social media.

I think smaller companies seem to hire younger staff which seem to know the value of interacting through media channels. It also might have to do with social media isn't costing anything other than maybe the hourly wage you pay for that person to do your updates, events, etc.. and that seems cost effective if you have the right audience.

Smaller faster growing companies recognise the need for and benefits gained from participation and engagement with their target markets.  Larger companies have become a little too complacent, and believe they don't need to try so hard to keep business or win new business. Time will tell.

Everyone needs to engage with their customers.  That is common sense.  However SM is not always the best channel to do so.  Especially when it comes to wanting and receiving personal service.  Do I really want my Healthcare Provider to friend me on Facebook?  Do I really want to "Like" my favourite manufacturer of sexually transmitted disease cures [ :-) ]  Do I really want to engage publicly on Facebook with the dealer that supplied my Bentley?  No to all of those.  Horses for courses. SM has it's place but it's not a universally desirable engagement mechanism.

Large corporations should look at BundlePost to help them organize social media content and reduce the employee hours required to manage that content today.

Yes large corporation have more to lose but I believe the issue is more about turmoil and focus. Large organizations often move rapidly from one trendy management program to another. The problem is that they never take the time to truly understand the value of the programs before rapidly moving on the next program. Social Media may or may not be a viable or useful tool for organizations long term but all organization would be wise to allow their customers to make that decision before they move on to the next program and discard Social Media.

I think to a great extent, these larger companies just don't feel the need to invest time and resources into social media platforms. Why? I think you nailed it on the head in your article, people will be talking about the company with or without them. Any attempt to control the massive flow of communication would actually be fairly futile. They probably just don't feel a need to participate in the existing conversation. As fortune 500 companies, people are going to talk, and most of the time most will be good. If something bad keeps repeating itself, it may be time to do a classic press release. These guys are old school, they stick with what's tried and true. It's what has made them successful, but also what makes them slow to react to changes in the market.

Larger established companies are often burdened in many cases with a command and control culture coupled with an old school one-to-many broadcast mentality. Sprinkle in legal and investor relations issues where certain types of comments can easily be misconstrued and lead to all sorts of compliance messes. And if that isn't enough, it can be argued that these companies also now risk being exposed to two-way dialog and possibly negative comments and interaction. Plus the time it takes to "feed the beast" and put good content out there. FEAR or TERROR are words that come to mind. This is not to say this posture is a good thing, but its easy to see that how the inertia of the status quo could be preferable. Plus in a larger company it is easier to hide. Smaller companies have less to lose, lowering risk. Considering the low cost nature of social media, one can more easily justify the time involved to create good content and terrific marketing investment, and negative comments become objections that lead to deeper relationships and sales.

My view is that social media is best for B to C enterprises and somewhat for b (small b intentional) to b companies and b to c businesses. Beyond that, social media is a waste of time and other resources. In another words it's just more noise in the system...

I think part of the problem with bigger firms, and here I'm primarily talking about household consumer brands, is that multiple people will always be willing to take a potshot at them irrespective of whether it is deserved or not.  The other point to consider is that end consumer brands often have a supply chain associated with them.  Therefore if I have an issue with something I've bought, say a name brand TV, and it hasn't been reliable, there's a matrix there of original manufacturer and the retailer, and the support that is provided (probably by a third party).  So who do I engage with?  The retailer, the manufacturer, the support provider or all three?  I think we would all recognise an issue in that not everyone would necessarily understand the distinction between the three.  In this case it's the entire supply chain that has to engage seamlessly with the end consumer and I don't think there's an appropriate mainstream social media platform commonly used by end consumers that really enables that to happen.  Therefore I suspect that is why some large brands stay clear of this type of enagement.  So for all the marketing consultants that I see posting here, maybe that's a big opportunity for you - get together with an ISV who builds social media platform extensions and create a whole new marketplace for yourselves :-) 

Larger companies have been controlling their messaging for decades.  They are not slow-moving to accept today's world in which consumers now participate in shaping the image of a brand/company (whether the company likes it or not).  Smaller companies consequently see engagement as a competitive advantage over their larger competitors.  And they should - for now - because eventually the Big Guys will figure it out and the smaller guys will need whatever head start they can get.

I suspect the underlying issue here may be how far heads of large companies are removed from customers.  In smaller companies, the Founder, CEO, President, COO, etc. are by necessity more closely connected to their customers, and the result is a greater comfort with close engagement via blogs, twitter, etc.

Social media has finally driven companies and organizations to "actively" participate with their customers/members/fans and prospective audiences. Reluctance to participate at the needed level for their organization is not a result of social media, but of the company culture and many other inherent issues that have been hidden for years. Social media is now identifying company issues and this is the great opportunity for change agents to begin to help and support companies and organizations for the better. Organizations that refuse to participate with their audiences is not reflective of social media, but on their own level of engagement and true activity in their company and/or organization. Participate, engage and be involved with your audiences otherwise get out of the way so that other companies and organizations can do it for you.

Social media has finally driven companies and organizations to "actively" participate with their customers/members/fans and prospective audiences. Reluctance to participate at the needed level for their organization is not a result of social media, but of the company culture and many other inherent issues that have been hidden for years. Social media is now identifying company issues and this is the great opportunity for change agents to begin to help and support companies and organizations for the better. Organizations that refuse to participate with their audiences is not reflective of social media, but on their own level of engagement and true activity in their company and/or organization. Participate, engage and be involved with your audiences otherwise get out of the way so that other companies and organizations can do it for you.

FANTABULOUS article Mikal.  What it spells for my clients is: OPPORTUNITY.

I am persuaded that the bigger firms are "too big to twitt". My assumption is that bigger firms developped so well there corporate communication, that it is hard for them to invest such spontaneous plateforms. It is definitely a different way of communicating, more direct, like being backstage. Bigger firms have the financial means, and can get the HR means, but I am not sure that bigger firms are ready to talk that way. 

Connecting with customers using Facebook and Twitter is a big asset for companies.  Companies that use social media to connect with their customers need to remember that it is not enough to have a Facebook page or Twitter ID.  You have to also be active on both sites, and interact with your followers/customers.

What would make companies more likely to use social media networks? What changes or updates can be made or added that businesses would appreciate more?

We use all methods of social media for our marketing and customer service efforts...I can't imagine not using it.

Smaller companies use SM more because they have to.  In comparison, many high ranking executives I know don't use LinkedIn - because they don't have to.  I use it all to time because I'm an independent strategic CFO consutlant, it's my biz offering to the world.  Smaller companies must listen to and be engaged with each customer, larger companies can afford to fat, dumb and happy.  At least for now.  Over time EVERYONE will need to engage thier customers to keep them and that is the power of SM. 

I think large companies suffer from the inability to be human. Once a company reaches a certain size and popularity, it's almost impossible to thank everyone who reTweets your Tweets, or address every complaint and concern posted to your Facebook page. So it becomes a question of whether you try and do all the things you're supposed to do--and do it well--or just do the basics and keep the lights on.

I am reminded of the study that shows that when physicians are up front with patients about errors made in treatment (including surgeries) and apologies are delivered with the utmost of sincerity, malpractice suits decline. It seems then that, as mentioned in the article, the adversity to risk and fear of having outsiders see our cracks, leads larger companies to 'close all the blinds' if you will.  This lessens the depth of the relationship. Smaller companies are more open by contrast and are betting the the openness leads to a strong customer relationship. As in the malpractice study above, customers see the business with as more human and not an amorphous machine.

Right on Sue! It's about listening to the customers and engaging with them. Small businesses understand the value in that. 

I agree, large corporations have a harder time putting a 'name and face' to their online presence. Clients want to connect with the business not just have a one way conversation and with smaller businesses this is more of an option.  It's a matter of using all tools + creativity + having some time to dedicate to engaging with the people you find online. 

I agree with aaroneden. I'll add using social media takes time and commitment. There is no point having a FB page or Twitter account if someone is not going to monitor it and engage with their followers. That's where aaroneden's comment comes in. "Small businesses... listening actively to their customers."  How does it make you feel when you visit a FB Page, leave a question or comment, and have someone respond? They cared that I was there. What if they didn't respond? Not likely I'll be back.

Big corporation are scared to participate. They are used to that old narcissistic model and not new altruistic model. Between now and 2020 half of them won't exist if they don't adopt to these changes.  epirot ludvik nekaj Ludvik + Partners www.ludvikplus.com

Interesting...hmm...To me, I think small businesses rely on the customers much more than the big companies. Because feedback from their customers helps them adjusting or amending their products to cope with their customers' needs and making easier POS decision making. In another word, small business still follows customer’s needs and wants but Big Company lead the way their products should be and customers will have to follow.

I second that social media is more cost-effective and when injected with awesome creativity, it can beat traditional advertising even.  To add, small businesses might be more flexible in terms of experimentation; noted on the article that big companies are averse to risks involved in using social media. Nonetheless, surely people have tweeted or posted a status message about them somewhere.

I think that this article is spot on.

Small businesses are banking on what large companies are missing: that is, listening actively to their customers via social media and responding quickly.  It's not only more practical, but it also helps with market research on a bootstrapping mode. 

It's sensible for small and start-up businesses to rely on social media, among other things, for promotions. They're less costly and provide the fast and massive exposure they need so they will be able to compete properly with their predecessors. But it all leads to effectiveness. Social media can make and break any company, depending on how it's used. Not all strategies, moreover, will work for everyone. 

Your article demonstrates that most big corporations "just don't get it" and seem to think that social media is a fad they can elect to ignore.