Social Media Marketing Is a Joke — It’s Time We Admit It

The only hope: let’s go back to its roots.

The best thing that ever happened to social media marketing was the hacking of the 2016 US election of Donal Trump by the Russians. Why? Because it laid bare what many in social media marketing has known for a long, long time: that social media platforms are a joke, their valua­tions are based on imaginary users, and their integrity lies somewhere between Lucifer and that guy who eats people’s faces in the movies.

For marketing consul­tants such as myself, recom­men­ding existing social platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram has been increa­sin­gly difficult, because ‑quite frankly- many of us don’t trust the metrics.

And why should we? Facebook doesn’t.

This is from Facebook’s 2017 SEC filing (emphasis mine):

The numbers for our key metrics, which include our daily active users (DAUs), monthly active users (MAUs), and average revenue per user (ARPU), are cal­cu­la­ted using internal company data based on the activity of user accounts. While these numbers are based on what we believe to be rea­so­nable estimates of our user base for the appli­cable period of mea­su­re­ment, there are inherent chal­lenges in measuring usage of our products across large online and mobile popu­la­tions around the world.

The largest data mana­ge­ment company in the world says it doesn’t really know if its numbers are accurate. Estimates? What marketing pro­fes­sio­nal wants estimated results after the fact?

It gets worse. Emphasis mine:

In the fourth quarter of 2017, we estimate that duplicate accounts may have repre­sen­ted approxi­ma­te­ly 10% of our worldwide MAUs. We believe the per­cen­tage of duplicate accounts is mea­ning­ful­ly higher in deve­lo­ping markets such as India, Indonesia, and the Philippines, as compared to more developed markets. In the fourth quarter of 2017, we estimate that false accounts may have repre­sen­ted approxi­ma­te­ly 3–4% of our worldwide MAUs.

Let that sink in. Facebook is admitting that “approxi­ma­te­ly” 10% of its monthly active users are fake. Interestingly, they don’t mention what per­cen­tage of their daily active users are fake.

And that’s the problem with social media. You don’t know what’s real and what’s fake anymore.

Social media hasn’t been real for a while.

As marketers and adver­ti­sers, we pride ourselves on accuracy. In the olden times of marketing and adver­ti­sing, we obsessed over rating numbers of tv shows, rea­der­ship for print pro­mo­tions, and delivery success rates for direct mail.

In all cases, the platforms of the day were heavily audited. You knew, with fair certainty, was the audiences were for any par­ti­cu­lar medium or channel because there was usually a point of review somewhere for the numbers.

Traditional media such as radio, TV, and print had been around long enough that there were thousands of case studies one could study the success or failures of indi­vi­dual campaigns. Because these mediums were part of the public record, it was easy to work backward to see what mix of media and budget worked and what didn’t.

As an industry, we could quickly establish bench­marks for success — not just based on our personal experiences- but in the col­lec­tive expe­riences of very clear stra­te­gies laid bare for everyone to dissect.

Well, that all went out the window with social media.

Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram’s numbers were always a joke.

In days of yore, company valuation was based on revenues, assets, and human capital, and performance.

That all changed when someone came up with the concept of “daily active users.”

The race to gain users became the driving force for social media platforms in a way that we’ve never seen before. Now, the obsession with user growth opened the door to adver­ti­sing and marketing fraud on a scale that just wasn’t possible previously.

Let’s get something clear: any platform that allows for people to create thousands of fake profiles so others can buy likes, followers, retweets, or shares is toxic to adver­ti­sers and brands alike.

Now, I unders­tand that the word “allows” is doing a lot of work in that sentence, so let me expand a bit what I mean.

I don’t think I’ll get many arguments when I say that ‑regard­less of what I think of them- the most suc­cess­ful social media platforms on the planet are also some of the most sophis­ti­ca­ted tech­no­lo­gi­cal enter­prises on the planet. They have ‑arguably- some of the best AI around, as their entire business models revolve around being able to crunch numbers, facts, and obscure pieces of data millions of times a second.

They are also massive cor­po­ra­tions, with an army of lawyers and IP bulldogs waiting to protect their brand against any hostile outside forces.

So explain to me, how is it, that even after all we have seen in the news people can still buy Facebook likes, or Twitter followers, or Instagram fans?

The reason: it was always a scam. And we got conned along with everyone else.

If your company is valued on your number of users and the activity of those users on your platform, what do you care if they are fake or not? If you did, you’d hire an armada of auditors to ensure the integrity of your userbase. I don’t believe they ever did and will never do this.

Social platforms deploy their honey trap.

Initially, social platforms such as Facebook and Twitter lured brands and companies onto their platforms with promises of free marketing and adver­ti­sing. The ability to quickly grow a fanbase and follower base, without the need of hiring marketing shmucks like me. Why waste time on hiring a pro­fes­sio­nal when you can do it all yourself for nothing?

At first, I was a supporter of this. I believed that marketing and adver­ti­sing was often something that only larger companies could afford, and that small business marketing was being left behind. Social media marketing allowed for even a mom and pop shop to compete online.

So many busi­nesses spent countless hours and thousands of dollars in human resources to grow their followers online.

Having lured them into their honey trap, social media companies then held followers and fans hostages. You had to pay to have access to the userbase that you built up and cultivated.

Suddenly the numbers didn’t make any sense. You had to pay to promote or boost posts when pre­vious­ly it was free. The result was disas­trous for many busi­nesses. The ROI’s didn’t add up, but with so many of their customers on these platforms, they had little choice but to continue to try and get whatever value they could for them.

Moreover, the move to such pro­mo­tions opened up the Pandora’s box to further abuses. The drive for revenue seemingly caused social platforms to continue to look the other way on fake profiles and social media bots because they drove ad sales. Personal data was harvested and mani­pu­la­ted in ways that users could not fathom and did not agree to.

Mostly, it did something to marketing that I’m not sure we can recover. For many digital marketing firms and marketing agencies, it forced us to down the Kool-aid with everyone else. People that should have known better doubled down on social media marketing for our clients when we knew ‑for most of them- it was unnecessary.

Marketing and adver­ti­sing agencies became accom­plices after the fact.

Like I said earlier, marketing and adver­ti­sing agencies and consul­tants are supposed to obsess with accuracy. We want our clients to have the very best ROI available.

However, like pro­fes­sio­nals in any business vertical, we’re self-serving.

One of my favourite examples of how people who would know better will say anything for a buck is real estate agents.

Have you EVER heard a real estate agent tell you it’s a wrong time to buy a house? In all of my days, I have never read an article by a real estate agent saying that people should hold off on a purchase. House prices going up? A great time to buy; you’ll make your money back imme­dia­te­ly! House prices going down? It’s a buyers market! Lock in your savings now!

Marketing and adver­ti­sing pro­fes­sio­nals did something similar with social media marketing.

We saw the platforms’ rise in popu­la­ri­ty and didn’t want to get caught in a lurch. The buzz was building behind them, and clients were often demanding us to help them. So ‑even though Facebook and Twitter were mostly unproven with little to no actual case studies to speak of- many firms told their clients to throw money into the black hole of social.

What was the result? The majority of social media campaigns are disasters. I only know of a fraction of companies that continue with any serious­ness on social media compared to the rates companies did with tra­di­tio­nal adver­ti­sing or even SEO and non-social digital ads.

You see it in the posi­tio­ning. When digital marketers talk about social media, they discuss it regarding “reach,” “exposure,” “presence,” “awareness.” That’s code word for “throw your money away.” Do an online search of the effec­ti­ve­ness of social media, and you will find the results filled with SEO and social media marketers praising the platforms and the strategies.

Real marketers talk about ROI. Impact on sales, and impact on lead gene­ra­tion. You can’t pay the rent on brand awareness. I’m saying this as someone who builds brands for a living.

And it’s not just me saying this. One of the largest brands in the world, Proctor & Gamble, gutted their ad budget and walked away from a host of agencies because of digital adver­ti­sing and marketing fraud.

Social sharing has been automated to death:

According to Buzzsumo, average social shares per article had declined by 50 percent in 2017 in com­pa­ri­son to 2015. Their data also shows how fast most hot topics become saturated with articles, leading to only a rela­ti­ve­ly few winners getting the majority of the societal shares and hyperlinks.

Another found that, that bots automate nearly two-thirds ‑66%- of all HTML links posted on Twitter.

Again, if social media platforms truly valued their user-experience and cared about social being social, they would have banned such practices years ago. No more social auto­ma­tion. If you want to engage with your fans and followers, you have to be there for them. You have to be live, online, ready to connect.

However, bots are good for business. They boost their daily active user accounts; they make their platforms look more popular than they are. Bots post content, bots like content, bots share content, bots follow people, bots message people ‑it’s endless.

Bots account for an ungodly 52% of internet traffic in 2017. That number is only set to rise further as social media continues to be an arms race. Caught in the middle of all of this are busi­nesses who think their digital marketing metrics have any meaning.

Your Influencer isn’t that influential.

I’m a firm believer in influen­cer marketing because I believe it is a natural extension of rela­tion­ship marketing. People will buy from people they trust and will accept the sug­ges­tions of people they like.

However, with the growth of online influen­cers, things have taken a turn for the surreal.

First off, many fans and followers of social media influen­cers are as fake as anything. Social media bots follow cele­bri­ties as a means to spam their pages and/or a means to scrape a list of people to spam later with content.

Secondly, as marketers and adver­ti­sers, we are supposed to care about accuracy. But the ability to verify the fan base of an influen­cer is almost impos­sible within the platforms. You have to go to third-party apps to try and get any real unders­tan­ding of the legi­ti­ma­cy. Moreover, even then, you are at the mercy of the third-party to provide you with accurate data. Should Instagram decide to shut down the API to these appli­ca­tions, you will have no idea how popular your influen­cer is.

The future of social media: live, direct, and transparent.

The way to solve the social media problem we’re facing today is simple: social media was great when it was social and personal. A return to the basics is needed.

No more automation

If you don’t have the time or the energy or the interest actually to ENGAGE with human beings, then social media is not for you. What’s more, you’re not for social media.

Automation should stop. Period. Let’s return to a more natural enga­ge­ment between brands, companies, customers and leads. Human inter­ac­tion is the most powerful driver of revenue and sales, as is the best metric for the real value of a platform.

See and be seen

The use of live video to establish authen­ti­ci­ty in an age where eve­ry­thing is anonymous will be a dominant driver of change in the next five years. Instead of hiding behind memes, and curated content, companies should leverage influen­cers and their employees to champion their brands. Reconnect with the basics: one-to-one or one-to-many communications.

The revolt of investors

I genuinely believe that the majority of social media firms have fudged the books when it comes to their userbase, activity, and popu­la­ri­ty. It’s time for investors to demand third-party audits of the data before the entire house of card falls on people’s heads.

Look, I’m a marketing consul­tant. I enjoy using social media. It allows me to stay in touch with the people and the brands I care about most in the world. But at the heart of it is a flaw ‑a glitch in the Matrix- that needs to be sorted out.

There’s a bubble out there, and social media firms that allow for fake profiles and anonymous users are at the heart of it.

Agence Arkenciel


Vous êtes un Professionnel ?

remplissez ce formulaire et nous vous recontactons rapidement

Vous êtes une Association ?

remplissez ce formulaire et nous vous recontactons rapidement

Source by Yusuf Gad

Laisser un commentaire