Great Brands That Compete On Value: Keep It Authentic


Great Brands That Compete On Value: Keep It Authentic

There has been quite a bit of buzz about social media lately, and not the good kind. As a hot topic of discussion, I figured it would pop up in the Freeport Press blog that I’ve been keeping up with, and as predicted, it did.

The Genie is Out of the Social Media Bottle
Author: David Pilcher

It wasn’t long ago that people were wondering if social media was okay. It seems like brands had just started coming to terms with misleading video metrics on FB when the whole YouTube scandal hit. Then Twitter fell headlong into the fake bot rabbit hole.

Funny how those problems pale in comparison with the consumer and political backlash in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica data scandal. The question has quickly turned from “is social media okay?” to “can social media survive?” As Kevin Roose writes in the New York Times, there’s something seriously broken in social media now, and it’s becoming increasingly obvious that things need to change…

…The polls show that the big three – Facebook, Google and Twitter – are all dropping in popularity in the U.S., Roose notes…

Does that mean the entire social platform experience was a mistake? Not necessarily; a lot of good does come out of improved ability to connect at a grassroots level. The big issue, Roose believes, is that Facebook can’t stand behind their promises to protect your data and your privacy. “Facebook can’t stop monetizing our personal data for the same reason that Starbucks can’t stop selling coffee – it’s the heart of the enterprise,” Roose continues.

…In other words, the ability for this kind of breach to occur again and again and again is hard baked into the platform, in the very DNA that the business model runs on. The data breach wasn’t a hack; in fact it was done quite simply by using Facebook’s own tools. According to media scholar Jonathan Albright as quoted by The Atlantic’s Ethan Zuckerman, “The ability to obtain unusually rich info about users’ friends is due to the design and functionality of Facebook’s Graph API. Importantly, the vast majority of problems that have arisen as a result of this integration were meant to be ‘features, not bugs.’”

Sure, the way that data was sold and then used to influence political discourse through highly emotional neuromarketing techniques may be ethically questionable…but it wasn’t criminal and it certainly shouldn’t have come as a big surprise. “Like Facebook, Google develops profiles of its users, with information from people’s private searches and tools like Gmail and office applications, to help advertisers target messages to them,” Zuckerman continues. “As you read this article on The Atlantic, roughly three dozen ad trackers are watching you, adding your interest in this story to profiles they maintain on your online behavior.”

It comes back to the “original sin” of the Internet, where we trade our data and our labor in exchange for free content. We all work for Facebook and reap precious little of the rewards. “Users of the internet have been forced into a bargain they had no hand in negotiating: You get the services you want, and platforms get the data they need,” Zuckerman explains.

Now Facebook says they want to do more to protect our data. Roose gives us some possible scenarios that might save social media – more power to the people, a more collective social management federation, and auto-expiring data profiles – but I don’t see the shareholders being terribly keen on anything that disrupts the duopoly.

Can social media be saved? Or has it reached the tipping point where its users have lost faith and decided the cost isn’t worth the risk? If they can figure out how to return to a time that is, as Roose muses, “fresh and fascinating, and not quite so scary,” maybe it can survive. In its present state, however, it doesn’t look likely.

It’s safe to say that people are now on high alert about suspect marketing tactics presented to them on social media or even seemingly related to their use of it or interaction on it. That negative association has major implications for brand perception. I think all of us who leverage social media platforms to deliver our marketing messaging need to take note and proceed with caution. Furthermore, with the decline in users predicted to be substantial, there’s going to be a major shift in audience and reach.

If you’re honest with your grassroots efforts, remaining true to your brand identity, then the positives of social media will still likely outweigh the negatives. By using it to connect in a genuine way to create dialogue in the online community where people exist that are in your actual community and target market, just as a personal user would, I believe there’s still value there. But in short, keep it personal and authentic or don’t bother. And certainly don’t place all of your marketing dollar eggs in one social media basket. It almost goes without saying that having your business/organization be directly associated with knowingly engaging in the shady practices that are under heavy scrutiny is the last thing you want to do.

In today’s shifting marketing landscape, those who have been wise to strike a good balance between the trendy and the tried and true are more apt to maintain the trust they’ve built with their consumer base and to be recognized for the value they deliver. With Strictly Business, you can capitalize on the strength and credibility of traditional print marketing with the added bonus of being featured online and on social media without the use of any sketchy tactics.

Let Strictly Business Magazine help you lock in your status as THE EXPERT in your industry, utilizing print, the internet and social media. Find out how by contacting Paige at (402) 466-3330.