Posted on January 17, 2008
Filed Under Marketing 2.0 |
Tom Arrix, VP, media sales east at Facebook, and Jamie Byrne, head of client solutions and ad programs for YouTube, participated in a panel discussion on social marketing at Argyle’s CMO Leadership Forum in New York. The PaidContent made me smile.
ROI and social nets: “Return on investment” is probably the wrong thing to be looking for. Instead, the acronym should stand for “return on involvement,” Arrix said. The usual standard of audience “reach” is too limited when it comes to social media and “things like click-through rates don’t cut it. Return on ‘involvement’ looks at what users are saying about your brand. For example, are users taking your message and sharing it with their friends? Every client we do business with, we tell them, ‘You have to divorce yourself from what you’ve done before.’”
Bullshit translation: ROI is antiquated. Divorce yourself from the idea that your marketing should actually drive business. There’s so much more to marketing.
Truth translation: You aren’t going to make any money from your marketing with us.
Clear objectives versus flexibility: YouTube and Facebook have literally “tons” of user data at their disposal. But Byrne complained that too often, clients aren’t certain what they want to do with that information. Weaver suggested that the uncertain marketer try by using the information culled by social net sites to research targeted audiences and approach online communities, at least initially, as you would a focus group. Though he finds social nets to be more reliable: “It could be a bigger win if you go in with an open mind, as opposed to having a hard and fast set of objectives. You get people as they really are, unguarded, as opposed to focus groups catching people on their way to the Popcorn Factory at the mall.”
Bullshit translation: Objectives are irrelevant to marketers in the New New Economy and our sites are huge focus groups for your brand. But you can only get something out of our “special” focus groups if keep an open mind!
Truth translation: You’re not going to get anything tangible from us.
Budgeting for social media: Where should the money come from for social net marketing efforts From the advertising budget From media buying From the overall marketing budget A portion of the funds earmarked for interactive It doesn’t matter, Byrne and Arrix said. Byrne: “We think the primary budgets are going to come from marketing and ad budgets. The challenge for a CMO is how to use us…” Arrix: “Social media marketing has to be part of the core marketing strategy, but it can come from marketing or media. We’re seeing custom research and holding companies coming to us to partner on studying the data. Usually, every great idea gets funded, so it doesn’t matter which bucket it comes from.”
Bullshit translation: Nothing is more important than social media marketing so find as much money as you can for us wherever you can find it. We’ll come up with some great things for you.
Truth translation: There’s a reason it’s challenging for a CMO to use our services - even we don’t have any idea what you’re going to get.
The CMO’s role: Bring all the parts of the marketing mix together, Byrne advised, adding: “Many CMOs toss the social media program to the interactive shop: ‘You guys figure it out.’ Now, a media agency might understand our platform better, but they don’t have the creative execution. Many creatives still think in terms of 30-second spots. It’s up to the CMO to get total coordination from those various areas.”
Bullshit translation: Social media marketing is far too important to not get it right. Devote significant resources to the marketing initiatives you have with us.
Truth translation: You figure it out. We don’t have a fucking clue.
Comments
6 Responses to “Facebook and YouTube to Marketers: Give Us Your Money”
Leave a Reply
Sponsors
Lead Sponsor
Drama 2.0's indulgent jet-set lifestyle is supported by Drama 2.0 Show lead sponsor . For more information about MySites, click here.
About
Drama 2.0 spikes the Web 2.0 kool aid by providing critical analyses of Web 2.0, its people, its startups and its impact on the world of media. Other topics are explored when Drama 2.0 has been drinking too much 1975 Dom Perignon. Read more about the Internet's version of Keyser Söze here.
Ads
Haha, funny translation Drama.
I thought the 3rd bs translation could have been
“We don’t care who or where it comes from, just give us your money.”
you are messing with people’s revenue streams - stop it before CEOs get wise and slash marketing budgets. Everyone likes clueless CMOs, they $$$$pend
Antje: I don’t know what to say. How about “Get a real job!”
[…] Publishers and agencies have been trying to distract from delivering tangible results by talking about things such as “engaging creative” and “brand awareness.” Much of the time, this talk is pure bullshit. […]
[…] Graphs like this one look great, but the proof is always in the pudding, and most of the quantitative proof out there shows that social media marketing is failing to deliver a tangible ROI for most brands. The popular social sites really aren’t even trying to hide this anymore. […]
[…] is no shortage of companies detailing their less-than-stellar (and more-than-realistic) results. Those relying on social media spending and social media fanboys seem to know there’s a problem with ROI. As […]