Thank you Alleli! I think if we look at social media as just one part of the overall marketing framework, it can be more useful. And focusing on the basics, as you recommend, is a great place to start.

Outsourcing Insider recently published an article in related to this topic as well; you can view them in the link I’ve used with my name above. I hope you find it useful as well. 🙂

Thanks, Adam, for the nice article – as always. 🙂

Thanks Shaun! Welcome to CTS!

It’s fun to discuss, and yes we can give words too much power certainly. I could ramble on machine metaphors, sports metaphors, all kinds of terms we use in business. But I’ll spare you the boredom.

To answer your question, it is context, juxtaposition. SM is a Tool/Tactic not a Strategy. I’d write FB is a platform, a network.. not a strategy. If this were SATs and the comparison (at which I was terrible!) was to Marketing, it’d be ‘component, part of the overall program’ – though I’d quickly argue Marketing part of the overall Communications program. Or would in some organizations that aim to ‘be’ rather than ‘do’ social, SM be a lateral dept. next to Marketing, that works together? And then where do you put Customer Service? Is that a tool, is that a tactic under Sales? It’s an afterthought (sometimes framed by language? is my theory) when like SM, it should be more integrated and not limited to a tactic or even part of a strategy. And what do you know.. I rambled anyway. 🙂 FWIW.

Agreed. Semantics can matter; it can also be given too much importance. I like your point about how things are framed and how that manifests itself to employees, customers and the like. I’m not sure use of the word channel in this context has that kind of power — but if it does, your point is taken.

So, my questions is this; how would you fill in the blank in the title? Social Media Is a _______ Not a Strategy

PS. Comments will be turned off until Friday while I migrate to a new host, but I hope you will come back for the answer! Enjoyed the discussion Davina!

Oh we do, we agree!! Though once in a while I think the semantics matter. It’s hard to explain my hair-brained, quasi-academic ideas.. but here’s a shot.

It’s not you making these assumptions, it’s the ‘general’ consumer, the ‘average’ business person who adopts a “buy 45 ads, get 12 sales, done” linear, straight-line expectations. When we use metaphors like ‘links in a chain’ or ‘down the pipeline’ .. it frames our thinking.

When companies use very mechanical terms to describe themselves, their workflows; employees see, hear, read about themselves described as ‘cogs in the wheel’, it matters. It’s not a company of people – living, human, organic; but a ‘machine’ something cold, hard – something where ‘communications’ is a non-issue, assumed to be automatic. Ex. would be the call center that doesn’t allow employees to listen, engage, act like people; they must robotically ‘stick to the script’ b/c the ‘formula’ says it works. And then everyone hates them b/c they’re terrible at service.

IDK I think at some level – words can change things. But then, I’m a ‘writer’ and therefore, totally biased. THANK YOU for letting me ramble. 🙂

I think I understand your point Davina, but I have to say I’m not completely sold. Perhaps I have misunderstood the concept of a channel — but I have never believed describing a type of a media as a channel created expectations of it being delivered as expected, understood, or generating action. These are the things we hope happen in any form of media, or any channel. #1 is usually accomplished fairly well — but #2 and #3 are crap shoots and have always been so.

I think we agree on the macro concept, which is that social is only a part of a larger fabric of media. I think we might just be differing on the semantics.

Thanks for the thought-provoking comment!

There’s NO guarantee that what is “sent” or ‘received’ via – much less ‘thru’ – a ‘channel’ will 1) be delivered, on target, on time as ‘planned’; 2) be understood exactly as intended sans edits or filters, external factors; or 3) generate the kind of action, engagement desired. Period. /End Rant

Social is ‘new’ media, it’s a new tool, an asset, a platform for communications. Part is brand owned, like blogs; part 2nd party and very public facing, the Big Networks. And yes a very important part of the marketing mix, as well as powerful for customer relations and business development. Can’t run into it blind, nor expect it to save a failing business w/ bad products and lousy service. Social won’t make or break you, but use it right, do it well, social (communications!) can make you better. FWIW.