I am not sure how social networking has been relegated, more appropriately, co-opted as a unique function of internet.  Since the operative term is “social,” and at the risk of pointing out the obvious, social networking has been with us since cave men gathered around fires playing flutes made from deer bone.   So what we’re talking about here is the human condition that drives most of us to connect to people, things, places and ideas.  From cavemen gathering around fires, to the spread of religious ideas, to the proliferation of the iPod, social networking has been with us since the beginning of time.  Now let’s fast forward to to the early 80s, to witness how Faberge capitalized on social networking while peddling organic shampoo in the famous “she told 2 friends, and she told 2 friends.” Remember this commercial?

So what now? Well, today, social networking is about letting today’s technologies work for you and your brand.  Still, the operative term is social very human instinct to be social.  Let’s not be so quick to discount the power of offline social networking, ultimately, whether is clothes, music, banking, mutual funds, or live stock, people buy from people…but technology is a fantastic tool allowing mutliplier effects to reach and connect with more people than ever before.

More to come…

The proliferation of social networking sites is advancing at an impossible pace. For businesses, these sites offer the Holy Grail, the opportunity for engagement of their customers. This particular race is reminiscent of the race for eyeballs in the early days of the consumer Internet between Yahoo, Excite, iWon, Alta Vista, DogPile (yeah, remember those guys) and the countless search engines, turned portals.  Then Google appeared and poof, most of those guys are gone or relegated to the Internet’s C-list - in the business sense of course.  Some of them still retain their web presences, others have morphed into something else.

The similarities between the portal races and social networking race are many, let’s look at some of them:

• Market share competition - This is done by creating useful tools that are meaningful to users.  More relevant tools, more people join, use, stay, and proselytize…at least that’s the way it’s supposed to work.
• Viral growth - portals and social networking sites relied heavily on their users for growth, although Yahoo delved into traditional advertising to drive growth. Interestingly, advertisers are creating their own space on Facebook, and bypassing their own corporate sites by driving consumers directly to their Facebook page through traditional advertising.
• Relevancy rules the day - the survivors of the portal wars won on their space’s relevancy to the user. Yahoo finance was created making it robust and useful, Yahoo mail kicked it up a notch after Hotmail was bought by Microsoft. And as much money iWon vowed to give away, users rejected  its business model because users care about the things important to them: 1. relevancy, 2. usefulness…iWon delivered neither.

Based on these lessons, let’s look into the crystal ball and see what shakes out for the social networking world:

Like the portal proliferation of the mid to late 90s, Facebook, Linkedin, Plaxo, MySpace, Youtube, Twitter, Friendster, et. al. are in an arms race to create useful tools in order to attract and keep market share.  One thing that must be considered here, and only one…who will be left standing when the user bandwidth becomes depleted.  In other words, why would I have a Plaxo and Linkedin accounts? Or Facebook and Twitter accounts?  Who has time for all this stuff?

Still, let’s assume businesses have the resources to sign up for these sites. Your business at Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin, is only as important as your network on those sites.  Imagine managing several networks, building your client database, and then working the networking by pushing out content.  This would involve high level strategy, definition of marketing tactics, PR strategies, and a solid implementation plan…I’m getting winded just thinking typing out these words.

Now on to Twitter…

Twitter’s growth, largely organic, press and celebrity driven, is understandable. I can understand how people would want to know what Brittany Spears is thinking about while on the checkout line at Walmart - well not really.  But why would I migrate my network from Facebook to Twitter. Ok, I can update my Facebook status via Twitter, but I can do so much more with Facebook and Linkedin. I can create groups, post videos, create events, and deliver status updates, so why would I recreate or duplicate my online world on a largely one dimensional site?  What is the relevance of Twitter to my business is the question we all must answer.  And so, if  we’re tweeting to no one or an irrelevant bunch of followers, than who cares.  But if we’re serious about tweeting as a social networking medium that can help advance business objectives, then we have to take time to create a relevant pool of people that either needs or wants to hear from us on  a consistent basis.  And if I’m on Facebook or Linkedin doing this very same thing, I am not inclined to dilute or distract my network by sending them somewhere else for a singular function, like a status update.

According to a recent article in Slate, citing a study by a Harvard Business School professor, showed that 10% of Twitter users were responsible for 90% of tweets. The article also referenced a study by Nielsen, the media research firm, which asserted “that 60 percent of Twitter users do not return from one month to the next.”

So what’s Twitter to do?  Simple.  Provide more useful functionality to continue to survive. Attracting visitors is one thing, keeping them engaged on a long term basis is another.

More to come…

A couple of weeks ago, I read an article about social networking in a leading New Jersey business magazine. The story quoted several New Jersey based marketing firm execs who weighed in on social networking. The article found a consensus among these folks who opined correctly that social networking is still in its infancy, but wondered about the direct relationship between social networking and the bottom line. The article went on to say the following [editor's note - I have removed the names to protect the innocent]:

• “I think most people are probably savvy enough to know you can’t draw a line directly from a Facebook page to the impact on the bottom line,” but     building relationships with constituents through social sites will ultimately contribute to a company’s success, he said, in ways that may not be quantifiable.

• [Name Removed] compares the push to participate in social media to the early days of companies seeking higher ranking on Web search engines. With social media still in its early stages, [Name Removed] said there are no proven methods of how best to reach customers.  [Name Removed] said while many companies want to engage in social media-based marketing, she warns that few know what to expect. Taking time to understand how the new playground functions can save businesses from a few headaches. “Corporate America isn’t quite ready for this interactive marketing highway that we are going on,” she said. “With this two-way street, they can’t control [the interaction] anymore.”

While the article suggested, correctly, that social marketing efforts ought to be tied into integrated marketing efforts, it completely ignored certain business driven realities of the medium and went on to substantiate the experience of those quoted in the article.  I called the reporter to let him know that, indeed, you can quantify the contributions of social networking to the bottom line. I provided the reporter with several cases from our firm showing him the direct correlation between successful social networking efforts and the bottom line. Other firms who work within, and understand the nature of the medium have done the same for their clients.  The reporter rationalized that the purpose of the column was simply to point out that social networking is no panacea, that there are still miles to go before we perfect the medium for business.  Agreed and if you read my previous posts on this blog, you’ll see how much I agree. But as much as I agree, I cannot accept the fact that the other side was not told.

The truth is that social networking takes work. It takes time, it takes strategy, and moves in real time.  This is not easy, and not easily explainable. And yet, we have the other extreme where the corporate business media make it sound like you can sign up for Twitter and make a million dollars.  The blinding speed in which people adopt, and are attracted to social networking, certainly does not help.  Which means, that as marketing/advertising/PR/communications professionals, we have to stay not only on top of what is happening, but provide meaningful interpretation for our clients in order to best leverage the medium to advance their business goals.

But there are certain realities that marketing and PR folks will not speak about in public. Frankly many traditional marketing firms are very, very afraid of social networking, because social networking, if done right, is a game changer, an eminent threat to their bottom line.  Much like the Internet decimated newspapers because of their their head in the sand rigidity about protecting their revenue stream, newspapers were like the proverbial frog who hangs out in a slowly boiling pot until it’s too late. Traditional marketing and PR firms will soon suffer the same fate, unless they begin to change their business model, and delve deeper into social networking to uncover real value and meaning for their clients.

Take a look at the last quote above from the article. With all due respect to the depth and breadth of the experience of the marketing executives who were quoted, but, have these people been on the Internet? Have they looked around to see how “corporate America” is utilizing social networking and the web? Have they seen major international / national brands direct people from TV commercials straight to their Facebook, rather than their own websites?  Do they realize that “marketing and advertising” or a very good portion of it, is so 20th century, and engagement is about today and tomorrow. Have they heard of the iPhone and it’s billion dollar earning apps?  I am sure that these folks have heard the calls of major brands like Procter and Gamble, American Express, Verizon, who understand that their businesses indeed do not have control of their brands, but they’ve adapted by developing strategies to engage their customers to proselytize for them and advance their business.  Have they attended the many leading conferences, where the Global marketers have called on Madison Avenue to stop wasting their money and their time?

Head in the sand strategy seemed to have worked fine for our banking system, right? I make the same analogy here, marketing and advertising firms have a responsibility to their clients rethink and reshape the way they do business. Because like newspapers, if they keep the old model close to their vest because they don’t understand the realities of the day…well, need I say more…

I’ll post about the imperfection of social networking in my next blog…more to come.