Complexity Models in Social Marketing (Part deux)
“Social media is maturing and being widely adopted by companies everywhere – many are still not prepared for it.”
In the last post, the aspects that create complexity in social marketing were presented and in this post we look at how to evaluate them.
Aside from the mis-steps in content itself (witness the faux pas of many major brands, ranging from JetBlue, Wal-Mart and GMC and countless smaller organizations) there is, to me, an obvious challenge in identifying the layers of complexity. This post will explore the complexity relating to organizational readiness and how to understand what you’re up against before you even begin.
In most engagements, I look first at a snapshot of the existing social presence and what social media sites are a part of the marketing toolkit (Facebook, Twitter, a blog, LinkedIn, etc.) As part of the snapshot, I also look at how they are used. I look at among other things, how recent posts have been made, the frequency of posts and whether or not there is any engagement with the audience. What has become apparent for me is the apparent complexity of the implementation is overlooked and many times, the presence is ineffective. If we examine the factors around staffing, # of geographic locations involved, management or compliance approval levels and the type of content being managed, we can readily understand why many implementations fail.
What I’ve also seen is smaller organizations with limited resources tending to focus on text-based social platforms and publishing primarily textual content, even though other content has been shown to be much more compelling to the audience. As the organization gets larger and matures, the content types expand to include pictures, images, and social-quality video.
Larger organizations do these and add more content with higher production values – commercial-quality videos and professional, AP-style writing. As a social marketing initiative rolls out, the number of social media properties the organization is involved with will expand too; a B2C organization might start on Facebook with a basic business page, but soon they will be wanting to make sure pictures that contribute to the marketing message are posted and publicized, videos are developed and posted and, if the efforts are successful, they’ll add more people to the social media functions and increase the level of production values. If an organization has a footprint that has them in multiple geographies, several of those locations may find they want to develop a localized online presence, they’ll look to be involved in posting content promoting their local operation to local prospects and customers.
This increasing complexity can be mapped and provide an understanding of what’s actually needed in terms of management structure, workflow, scheduling needs, and multiple author management. To aid in the assessment, we developed the Content Complexity model.
The Content Complexity model is a construct that graphically represents the inherent complexity of the social content management model they begin with. Within the construct, a business can place a marker in the quadrant that best represents their efforts in utilizing social marketing.
Here are a few examples we’ll use to demonstrate the Complexity Model –
Company 1 – a small to medium business in a single city with a single author, but multiple departments having a stake in the online presence. Platforms include sites that handle text, image / pictures, podcasts and video.- Company 2 – a foodservice brand with a single author in a headquarters location and multiple regional locations. Departmental approval is required for posted content that includes text, images / pictures and video.
- Company 3 – an international CPG/FMCG brand with multiple authors, multiple locations around the world, multiple platforms and several layers of approval required for content.
As this model is utilized the permutations will be many, but we can use these examples, positioning each on the construct in a position that represents their basic complexity and then, later place these same companies on a Complexity Master to understand how complex their models really are.
To map a given organization on the model, begin with placing related aspects together on the lesser grids. One grid with each axis representing # of geographic locations by # of authors and again, on a second grid, the # of media types by # of compliance inspection levels involved. Each quadrant is labeled with a letter, ‘A’ in the upper right, ‘D’ in the lower left. The lower left (quadrant ‘D’) represents fewer participants and as we move to the right and up along the axis, ending at quadrant ‘A’ representing more participants.
The placement on the lesser grids gives us an easy to understand representation of the simpler aspects of authors / geography and media types / compliance. Using these placements and simple averaging, the markers can now assume placement of a truer representation of the overarching complexity ahead for the enterprise. Placement on the Complexity Master panel represents a merger of the location of the respective markers on the lesser panels in the construct. Now we have a clear representation of the underlying and inherent complexity, as well as the likely investment required, for each of the organizations.
Why go through this exercise? The understanding gained in this exercise is one that gives an organization a comprehension of the challenges ahead and how best to approach and budget for the task. Armed with that understanding, areas of investment can be projected out into the future and budgets better prepared.
For example, Company 3 should expect to make continuous investment in their staff, training, tools and content management infrastructure. Not simple to begin with because of their size, but because of the complexity of their operation – several people, several locations, several departments and many platforms for content development and delivery – they also need to not under-spend or understaff the operation. Companies 1 and 2 however have few authors, multiple departments (more than one), and several media types (textual, video and audio). In these operations, workflow management becomes the important function, permitting management to exercise more control over the published work of the authors. For Company 2, the organization may also need to project their social presence into a geographically dispersed team, adding complexity for sure, but also adding additional layers into compliance.
Inability to recognize these complexities puts strain on the organization. Staff is mis-managed, content arrives late and social engagement is stifled – to the detriment of the brand. The social marketing model will, conceptually at least, places authority for interaction and content close to the edge of the organization, perhaps much closer than many manager feel comfortable with because the corporate paradigm demands control over the process, the message and increasingly, the medium.
The emerging social paradigm suggests that brand definition is achieved in conjunction with the consumer itself. In dozens of conversations with marketers, I am still taken by the number that take the phrase ‘social media’ more as ‘media’, as in yet another channel in which to broadcast a brand message, versus ‘social’, which suggests an opportunity to connect with and engage the consumer audience. The failure to adopt the social in social media marketing is the hallmark of many failed initiatives and the repeated failure of marketers in making the distinction will be the single most difficult gate for the next generation of marketers to navigate.
After having looked for a year, I had hoped to find more content management solutions by now that are even beginning to handle this level of complexity but I have not. In the next post however, I’ll start looking at the existing tools and technology out there, beginning with the low or no cost options and then moving up the ladder to more function, more robust and more expensive alternatives.
[The slides are also posted on SlideShare here.]
Complexity in Social Marketing Content for the Enterprise Intent Engines and Facebook Verbs
