6th May:

A few months ago I posted a note on Facebook commenting that, in my opinion, social media is irrelevant as a marketing tool to the vast majority of companies. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I received quite a few emails from friends and colleagues trying to persuade me that I was at best misguided (if not deluded) and at worst a luddite of Tyrannosaurus-esque proportions. My point, which may have been lost on the audience at the time, was not that social media has no value at all – it certainly can help brands to raise awareness of new products and drive sampling – it was simply that social media generally needs to be combined with the more traditional elements of the marketing mix and really only works for companies operating in some fairly specific market sectors.

Although some time has now passed since my original post, absolution has finally come in the form of acclaimed marketing consultant (and Associate Professor of Marketing) Mark Ritson. Mark writes a column for Marketing Week magazine, and this week’s column (“Hoodwinked by the Emperor’s New Tweets") very pointedly confirms and reinforces (vindicates?) my views on this subject.

In his article, Mark points out that vehicles like Facebook may provide companies with a free communication mechanism that has some viral potential, but the overall reach is relatively small and results therefore limited. Both Twitter and YouTube come in for similar criticism. As with my own original post, Mark is quick to recognise the part that social media can play within a wider, integrated marketing campaign and is certainly not dismissive of its power to affect the way we feel about a brand, but he does make the valid point that too many marketing professionals have jumped on the social media bandwagon for fear of being left behind, without really considering what they are trying to achieve by being there.

It’s a very good article indeed, and I’d recommend it:
http://www.marketingritson.com/documents/ritsonpage.pdf