Don’t think Rule, think Permission when thinking about Social Media

by drm on April 3, 2009

I had an interesting meeting yesterday with someone who I very much respect: a experienced media executive with a history of success and innovation.

Part of the reason for getting together was to bounce off him a social media initiative that we’re getting ready to roll out in our organization. I wanted to test that our logic was sound and that all of the supporting activity that we’re planning ties in with the overall mission of the initiative.

(I’m excited about what we’re planning and am looking forward to sharing it on the blog.)

A question developed for my friend while we were reviewing the plan: How will you make sure that marketing messages are distributed through the network you develop?

I had one of those moments where you start to explain and realize that your foundation concepts are so different than the traditional framework, that what you are saying sounds weak and flimsy.

We don’t mandate anything when we social media for marketing, I said. We offer up pieces of relevant content and conversation, and we hope that they are useful enough to be included in the authentic dialogues of the people we are connected with.

Sounds kind of soft, doesn’t it?

Picture 1.pngToday, I come across a succinct blog entry that gets to the heart of the matter more directly:

Social media is not push marketing – use it as such and watch the people run. Social media is rather, permission based marketing and is about conversation and participation. And, that conversation and participation turns out to be the marketing.

The author, Mike Brewer, is thinking specifically to apartment marketing through social media, but gets the key:

The “permission” embedded in social media is being part of another person’s network. You’ve been invited into their personal space. It’s like being a guest at their home. Everything you do, particularly at the outset, needs to be consistent with the permission that’s been granted to you.

You don’t walk into someone’s house for a dinner party and shove the flier from your restaurant in their hands.

If you want to get them to think about going to your restaurant, you get into a conversation with them. You admire their taste in food. You talk about chefs you’ve worked with before. You ask what kind of food experiences they’ve had.

You mention that you have a restaurant.

And then you wait and hope that they ask if they can come by.

That’s the kind of conversation they have implicitly given you permission to have. That’s at the heart of social media.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Share
  • Travis M.

    I couldn’t agree more.

    Individuals need to first integrate themselves into the social network, establish themselves as a trusted adviser/expert in an area, and then start seizing opportunities to provide others with their knowledge/expertise. Some of those opportunities will result in business transactions.

    Participants should practice listening more and acting less. It really is a two way conversation.

  • Travis M.

    I couldn’t agree more.

    Individuals need to first integrate themselves into the social network, establish themselves as a trusted adviser/expert in an area, and then start seizing opportunities to provide others with their knowledge/expertise. Some of those opportunities will result in business transactions.

    Participants should practice listening more and acting less. It really is a two way conversation.

  • http://www.nci.com drm

    Nice mention of the ClueTrain Manifesto, Travis. It’s polarizing and many people feel it is cultish, but it gets at the essence of working the conversation. Have you ever looked at Umair Haque’s work, which can be polemic but brilliant. He did a great presentation on the economics of new media and gives lot of thought to what he calls “Connected consumption.”

  • http://www.nci.com drm

    Nice mention of the ClueTrain Manifesto, Travis. It’s polarizing and many people feel it is cultish, but it gets at the essence of working the conversation. Have you ever looked at Umair Haque’s work, which can be polemic but brilliant. He did a great presentation on the economics of new media and gives lot of thought to what he calls “Connected consumption.”

  • Travis M.

    I haven’t but I will give it a read. Thanks.

  • Travis M.

    I haven’t but I will give it a read. Thanks.

  • http://www.nstein.com OlegR

    Travis, Dan,

    Cannot agree more. The only way to make social media work (and I use it not only to create personal/expertise brand in certain knowledge area, but also to create basis for business transactions) is to facilitate a 2-way conversation. In order to have someone invest in you (by replying, listening, buying your product, reading your blog, etc.) you need to invest equal or larger amount of value (time, knowhow, knowledge, referral) in the relationship.
    Just like it is true for any media – the more quality, valuable content I give to my twitter followers for free, the higher response, following ratios, and retweets i get.

    I’m sure you have noticed that many of the tweeters abuse the service, by following thousands of people, and get irrelevant followbacks. Thus, people let these abusers into their personal space without having interests aligned. Besides big numbers on the profile page, such social media relationships don’t lead to anything.

    On the contrary, tweeters who gathered their followers through common interests and interesting content can make quite an impact both on marketing and sales sides.

    Real-life example:
    Dan, for your business, I think, a twitter network of 10,000 real estate agents will bring much more value than a million of regular twitter people. Why? because interests of targeted network are aligned with your marketing interests.

  • http://www.nstein.com OlegR

    Travis, Dan,

    Cannot agree more. The only way to make social media work (and I use it not only to create personal/expertise brand in certain knowledge area, but also to create basis for business transactions) is to facilitate a 2-way conversation. In order to have someone invest in you (by replying, listening, buying your product, reading your blog, etc.) you need to invest equal or larger amount of value (time, knowhow, knowledge, referral) in the relationship.
    Just like it is true for any media – the more quality, valuable content I give to my twitter followers for free, the higher response, following ratios, and retweets i get.

    I’m sure you have noticed that many of the tweeters abuse the service, by following thousands of people, and get irrelevant followbacks. Thus, people let these abusers into their personal space without having interests aligned. Besides big numbers on the profile page, such social media relationships don’t lead to anything.

    On the contrary, tweeters who gathered their followers through common interests and interesting content can make quite an impact both on marketing and sales sides.

    Real-life example:
    Dan, for your business, I think, a twitter network of 10,000 real estate agents will bring much more value than a million of regular twitter people. Why? because interests of targeted network are aligned with your marketing interests.

  • http://mbrewergroup.com mbrewer

    drm -

    Thank you for the trackback.

    You really hit the nail on the head when you speak to the concept of alignment. It really is the heart and soul of relationships be them on or offline. The permission should be handled with respect goodwill at all times. And, that is not to suggest that every conversation is a utopia and shower of goodness. Good healthy debate is important and fully acceptable provided it’s done with the preservation of dignities in mind. The fortunate or unfortunate thing [depending on what side your on] about social media is that if there is a breach of the permission – you simply opt out and move on.

    Great stuff – thank you for taking the time – I have added you to my reader and look forward to future conversation.

    Have a great weekend.

    M

  • http://mbrewergroup.com Mike Brewer

    drm -

    Thank you for the trackback.

    You really hit the nail on the head when you speak to the concept of alignment. It really is the heart and soul of relationships be them on or offline. The permission should be handled with respect goodwill at all times. And, that is not to suggest that every conversation is a utopia and shower of goodness. Good healthy debate is important and fully acceptable provided it’s done with the preservation of dignities in mind. The fortunate or unfortunate thing [depending on what side your on] about social media is that if there is a breach of the permission – you simply opt out and move on.

    Great stuff – thank you for taking the time – I have added you to my reader and look forward to future conversation.

    Have a great weekend.

    M

  • http://www.nci.com drm

    Thanks Mike. You neatly articulate the powerful element of choice in each dialogue. I’m intrigued by the implications that will have on how to adapt marketing to social media: a company needs to work to keep their message consistent and on point, but make it flexible enough to embrace the dialogue with the marketplace. It’s the difference between being a great seminar teacher and a great lecturer. People can be good at one and not the other.

  • http://www.nci.com drm

    Thanks Mike. You neatly articulate the powerful element of choice in each dialogue. I’m intrigued by the implications that will have on how to adapt marketing to social media: a company needs to work to keep their message consistent and on point, but make it flexible enough to embrace the dialogue with the marketplace. It’s the difference between being a great seminar teacher and a great lecturer. People can be good at one and not the other.

  • Bill Pryor

    Through the exchange above, I just learned more about social networking (which I am finally starting to “get”) than I did from the last dozen newspaper articles I read about it. Hmmmmm. Newspapers, remember them?

  • Bill Pryor

    Through the exchange above, I just learned more about social networking (which I am finally starting to “get”) than I did from the last dozen newspaper articles I read about it. Hmmmmm. Newspapers, remember them?