Oops – another Twitter episode for the blooper reel. One of Fox News’ verified Twitter profiles @FoxNewsPolitics was hacked today (probably by Script Kiddie according to the Beeb) and proceeded to announce the (fake and frankly tasteless) assassination of President Barack Obama. Ouch.
“It’s not every day you run through London in your pants…” is what one participant said. Something I thought was a bit of an understatement. But then again, the other week we were launching a 55%ABV beer served from dead squirrels, so right now filming a flashmob (with the emphasis on the ‘flash’) running around Piccadilly Circus in their underwear seemed like a normal day for the Manifest PR team.
MySpace has a PR problem because its users are in places where they don’t have much contact with people who create news that gets read by others. Other than that, there is really no difference between users of Facebook and MySpace, except they are poorer on MySpace.
An interesting new study that appeared on the Harvard Business School blog this week details a study by Professor Mikolaj Jan Piskorski into the mindset of social networkers in the US.
The post makes some really interesting points – including the fact that MySpace really isn’t as dead-in-the-water as the media would have us believe. It still has far more regular users than Twitter, and contributions are much more equal (90% of twitter posts are created by 10% of the user base).
Now – I’m not going to get into a comparison debate here, because I also have some strong opinions about where Twitter and Facebook are headed in 2010, but for now, let’s look at MySpace for a change.
MySpace is still a force in social networking
I’ve long believed that MySpace has more staying power than it’s given credit for. It’s not just because of its head start on user numbers (it’s still the number 2 social network in most European territories), it’s because despite the doom-heralding headlines, I’ve not seen any research suggesting loyal MySpace users are reducing their activity on the network.
Yes, new registrations are slowing as Facebook and Twitter et al grow apace, but people are still using MySpace and, importantly, they use it for a reason: music.
The Harvard study goes on to suggest that MySpace isn’t given much attention because it is strongest in smaller regions and cities – not the Londons and New Yorks of this world. Although we don’t definitely know if this is the case in the UK and Europe (the study is US-centric), I would bet that it is. The bulk of MySpace users are there to discover and share new music, entertainment and even art – which is obviously much harder to do offline outside of the big cities. Interestingly, it is also more difficult for brands to connect with audiences outside of the big cities and media hubs – adding to MySpace’s significance for many campaigns.
Essentially, because MySpace has a ‘reason’ for membership and regular use (a narrative theme, if you like) I think it has a longevity that might even outstrip some of the current ‘hot prospects’ growing exponentially in user numbers and media attention.
The Harvard study reinforces my belief that if your brand is looking to connect with a relatively young audience (average user age is 26 compared with Facebook’s 33) engaged in music, arts and entertainment, then ignoring MySpace is a schoolboy error.
I imagine at least 90% of those who read this post will be from a ’social media agency’ so I want to begin by saying, “Calm down. It’s not necessarily what you think.”
I fully appreciate that social media agencies provide a valuable and informed service – but my point is that this service should be provided by PR agencies as part of the broader media strategy. It’s not being provided by the vast majority of PR agencies, of course, and that’s why we have the ‘dedicated social media agency’; but this just fragments the industry further and provides another obstacle to effective integration.
Dedicated social media agencies have been appearing right-left-and-centre for three or even four years now and understandably so. Social networks and web platforms have amazing (and proven) potential to drive brand awareness, fuel sales and meet specific communications objectives. However – ‘dedicated’ social media agencies are missing the bigger point.
These agencies* are perpetuating the myth that ’social media’ is a separate entity from ‘traditional media’ – but in reality, it’s all media and regardless of your objective, a strong communications strategy will take into account the entire media spectrum. A social media agency, by its very definition, is unlikely to develop a strategy that has a print or broadcast media foundation, even if that is the best route for the brand. This has potentially damaging consequences for the communications sector and, in a nutshell, this is why social media agencies should not exist. Sorry.
The PR industry failed to grasp the potential of social media fast enough, spawning the 'dedicated social media agency' that threatens to fragment the industry further.
Now I am NOT saying here that social media agencies do not provide good ideas, great content and even brilliant results – there are plenty of examples of great social media campaigns developed by these agencies and I have lots of friends who work for them. The point I am trying to make here is not about the quality of work, or that social media agencies are run by charlatans (although there are some dubious ‘gurus’ out there), it is that a brand should not have to recruit a social media agency to deal with web execution and a PR agency to handle traditional media relations – the latter should provide all the knowledge and creativity required to develop an integrated campaign that encompasses all relevant media channels. Social media should be part of a communications campaign, not a separate one. In that sense, I am not criticising social media agencies in this post, I am criticising the PR and marketing industries for not grasping the intricacies of social media fast enough. Indeed, this social media agency bandwagon is being pulled by two familiar mules:
No wonder the people tasked with setting up these dedicated social media or digital services take it upon themselves to plug the gap in the industry and make the money themselves. But doing this is doing a disservice to clients. Social media is part of the media landscape now. Permanently. What you do online affects conversations offline. Offline coverage drives online conversation. The two cannot be separated. As such, the future for PR is to embrace social media as part of the service offering and develop expertise within PR teams. Social media does require a new set of expertise but these should not be separated from the other communications practices – they should be part of the stable of services offered by a strong PR agency. Obviously, coming from a full service agency’s blog you might see why this is the stance I’m taking – but it’s a genuine one. The brand that decides to hire a social media agency should take a good look a their PR firm and weigh up the options.
*I should also clarify that I am talking here about social media agencies that claim to develop ’social media campaigns’ from a PR standpoint and not those (specifically within advertising) that simply offer technical development services, creating social media content or building web resources according to the brief from a lead agency. I’m not including agencies that provide specialist coding skills here.
This video is the fourth in a series of annual reports on media convergence. The statistics are great (although very USA-centric) and the message is clear – the social media revolution is no longer ‘the next big thing’, it is a phenomenon happening now.
The most interesting soundbite it pulls out suggests that what fits inside our pockets now will, in 25 years, fit inside a blood cell.
What do you think?
Posted via web from Manifest Communications
Back to top
The Manifest Blog was designed and engineered by Manifest.
hello@manifestlondon.co.uk
BlogCatalog
4th July 2011
