«
»

Straight-up Snark

CMOs: “Social Media is Better In-House”…DUH

October 26th, 2009 by Andrew Swenson in Straight-up Snark
Some things are just painfully obvious.

Some things are just painfully obvious.

When a group of CMOs were asked which group was best equipped to help them with social media, a recent post on Business Week reported the following:

65.6% In House
15.6% Interactive Agency
9.4% PR Firm
9.4% Social Media Agency
0% Creative/Ad Agenc

I may anger some of my friends in the agency world (I know, I was there once too), but I firmly believe social media MUST come from inside an organization in order to be credible. I think this is best illustrated in a quote from one respondent:

“We looked at a few social media agencies but they understood social networks but not our industry or customer engagement insights for our products.”

I’m not suggesting that it’s inappropriate for a social media agency to educate your staff, but I do believe that they should never, ever, take the place of someone from inside your company. Agency professionals, no matter how great they are, will never be able to replicate the experience or product knowledge your staff has.

The point of social media is not to rigidly control every tweet and Facebook post, but to offer open and honest interaction with your customers. When you use an agency as an intermediary, you look shady. It says to us that you see social media as obligation  you have to handle, not as an opportunity for real and direct communication.

You cannot have real and direct communication though an intermediary. Remember back to middle school when someone asked you out, and instead of responding directly you used a mutual friend to filter your conversation? That mutual friend is the social media agency, and it’s a barrier between you and your customers.

Social media is supposed to be about removing barriers. The ethos of social media demands a human being behind a tweeting logo, and an authentic interaction behind every tweet.

Maybe you disagree. I’d love to talk about it.

Until then though, I’d like to offer a word of thanks to all CMOs out there, for finally getting one right.

-Andrew

Photo Credit: Troy2007

Related Posts

No related posts were found, so here's a consolation prize: Think Small: Rapid Innovation.

keywords: , , , ,

If you liked this post, subscribe to get updates via RSS or email

  • http://brandhabits.net Andy

    Couldn’t agree more. Perhaps your agency friends can be comforted though in the fact that they can still add value (and get paid) by offering guidance and the tools for marketers to manage their social media. But, please don’t think that you should be doing it yourselves – stealth like.
    Transparency is key…
    .-= Andy´s last blog ..Brand Australia – The best outcome? =-.

  • http://thepicaresque.com Abby Wambaugh

    Finally one topic I feel I can genuinely give advice about. :)

    As someone who manages social media for a major brand, it never ceases to amaze me when companies allow their social media to be managed on a day-to-day basis by an agency. I think this is a decision usually made out of ignorance and/or lack of in-house staff (particularly knowledgeable staff). It also never ceases to amaze me how agencies TRY to take social media from companies. If your agency is all about the money and not all about the best thing for the company they are serving, ditch them fast.

    I DO however believe in agencies assisting with social media. ASSISTING. With things like reporting, monitoring, campaigns, etc. The voice and messaging should always be, at the very least, supervised by the organization.

    I think social media should be handled in a similar way to a company spokesperson – since in many ways that is who they are. As someone who was previously the lead spokesperson for a company, it also never ceases to amazing me when companies have agencies speak for them on a day-to-day basis or when they have agencies blog for them (a HUGE personal pet peeve which I wrote about here – http://bit.ly/FfVOL). Speak for yourself. You can say it best.

    Another great post Andrew!

    Also a comment for Andy, the word transparency has been thrown around a lot these days – dare I say, a ‘buzz word.’ The only problem with that word is that I do believe there are degrees of transparency and that any organization should not be 100% transparent. My friend Matt says it much better here – http://www.thebasement.com/?p=12.
    .-= Abby Wambaugh´s last blog ..The Art of Making and Breaking Habits =-.

    • http://brandhabits.net Andy

      Abby, I think you’re right. Perhaps a better way of referring to transparency would be to say ‘don’t practice deception’. Businesses shouldn’t be giving everything away, but at the same time they shouldn’t be involved in communications that are deceiving (although you could argue that many past ad campaigns have been just that!)
      .-= Andy´s last blog ..Brand Australia – The best outcome? =-.

  • http://www.bluehelm.com Chad Mustard

    I don’t think the in-house vs. social media agency questions is so obvious. Many companies don’t have the budget to hire a good in-house social media expert. In-house employees are expensive, time consuming, and risky. If you’re a big corporation with a lot of money, then you absolutely should approach social media in-house. In reality, the answer to the in-house vs. social media agency questions is it depends.

    Here’s a post that gives a few reasons to hire an agency: http://www.bluehelm.com/2009/10/in-house-social-media-expert-vs-outside-agency-who%E2%80%99s-better/.

    Thanks for the post Andrew!

  • http://wordpost.org Andrew Swenson

    Thanks everyone for your comments. In reading your reactions, I think that I need to further claify what I see as the role of an agency involvement in social media. Of couse you may disagree (especially I you work for an agency :) )…

    When I did social media consulting it was just that–consulting. Sure, I was the one helping o write the engagement plan, I was the one helping them manage time and produce better content, but, tempting as it was at times, I never posted on my client’s behalf.

    As for budget, teaching a workforce new skills and greater time management was definately cheaper than hiring an expert. I see the role of the agency as one that uplifts and empowers instead of taking over.

    For me, as Abby has clearly articulated there’s an ethical imperative not to post on someone’s behalf. Do you feel the same way? Am I being unreasonable here?

  • http://thepicaresque.com Abby Wambaugh

    Chad – Interesting that you think an in-house person is risky. In my experience, an agency is MUCH more risky. A couple times I have been sick or on vacation and have allowed the agency to post in my absence, after coaching and working together for many months. They still made mistakes, got messaging wrong, missed posts, etc. These are smart agency ppl too, they just don’t understand the ins and outs of my company like I do. I also agree with Andrew in saying that it is cheaper to train an in-house person to add social media to their duties, than to hire an external. I’ve seen the budgets of both…
    .-= Abby Wambaugh´s last blog ..The Art of Making and Breaking Habits =-.

    • http://www.bluehelm.com Chad Mustard

      I only meant that an in-house person is risky in the sense that there is a lot more training and commitment involved with someone who may not even do a good job. If your company can afford a credible social media person, then you should absolutely hire them over an agency.

      Thanks for your points Abby and Andrew!