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

By: Andy

Andy — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:33:38 +0000

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? =-.

By: Chad Mustard

Chad Mustard — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:03:01 +0000

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!

By: Abby Wambaugh

Abby Wambaugh — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:04:50 +0000

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 =-.

By: Andrew Swenson

Andrew Swenson — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:44:25 +0000

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?

By: Chad Mustard

Chad Mustard — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:59:29 +0000

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!

By: Abby Wambaugh

Abby Wambaugh — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:39:22 +0000

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 =-.

By: Andy

Andy — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:48:52 +0000

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? =-.