Social Media: Redefined

photosource

I saw a headline this morning that struck me. The title? Why you shouldn't hire a social media manager.


Um, hey. I'm Sarah. Marketing and Social Media Manager extrordinaire at your service. A little offended by said title. 

Naturally I read the article with my guard up, waiting for the seemingly inevitable validation of my subconscious but sometimes evasive fear: my job is perhaps a teensey bit frivolous.


Not to say I don't believe in my cause. I absolutely, whole-heartedly believe in social media as a tool for institutions, organizations, celebrities, and businesses. I even more whole-heartedly believe in the role of an educated strategist to facilitate social media marketing strategies. As addressed in earlier posts, and as I have seen first hand, a well thought out campaign is much more than a tweet here and a facebook fan page there. Its actually quite complicated, and made even more-so due to its relative infancy.


Side note: I am wildly amused when I see job listings for social media managers/directors/strategists that list things like "must have 3-5 years of experience in social media marketing." Huh? Newsflash: Facebook launched to Harvard students in 2004, and then to everyone else in 2006. Twitter was also founded in 2006. These are the current, and loosely speaking the first prevalent forms of social media that kickstarted the social media marketing movement as we know it today. So in essence, five years of experience in this field makes you Mark Zuckerberg or Biz Stone. And I'd wager to say that neither are in need of jobs or extra cash given their current social stature. But I digress.


I'm not one to publicly critique someone else's work (especially since the author of this article is a successful digital marketing strategist--which is why I'm surprised she wrote it). Instead, I will offer a polite reframing. Had I written this article I would have titled it something to the effect of Three things to consider before you hire a social media manager.


1. In the actual article, reason number one for why you should not hire a social media manager states: "Social media has yet to be defined and communicated as it is relevant to your business." It then goes on to effectively say that with so many different channels (Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin, YouTube, Flikr, Wordpress, etc.) organization can be tricky and goals may become blurry. My response? Hire a real strategist who knows and understands your industry and social media's role in it. Define your goals and let the strategist tell you how social media will further them. A true social media strategist will see a hole in your social communication and show you how to supplement your existing marketing plan in order to fill that hole. Hello success.


2. Reason number two: "Goals, responsibilities, and expectations for the role are not clearly defined." The author points out that when searching for social media jobs online you will find a myriad of job titles and discriptions for social media professionals. My rebuttal: I'm wondering when all job descriptions became unified? How many Vice Presidents of younameit are there around the United States? And how many of them perform the same tasks? I've seen everything from the Vice President who manages and the Vice President who runs the place. As with any other position, one's role in a company will depend on the size of the business as well as the industry and conditions that are present in that workplace. It is up to the company to decide what tasks are allocated to each member of the team.


The final paragraphs of the article caution that the available number of qualified social media professionals is small, and urge companies to consider all their resources, citing Home Depot as an alternate example. The author admits the value of the in-house social media hire, but reminds us that it might not be right for every business. I have no qualms with this. And I mean no disrespect to the author. She's actually quite amazing, despite my disagreement with her framing of this article. My question to her is, why--especially when you're at the forefront of a field that so many of us truly want to succeed in--use such a negative title for an article that really just discusses options? That's just no fun--and a little bit of a downer. 


You can find the original article here. 

Scheduled Tweets: Cheating the System?

It was only a few months ago that I was elated by the magic of the scheduled tweet. I could sit down at any time and plan out my Tweets for the next few hours, days, even weeks, and I was good to go. At the gym working out? On an airplane? Sleeping? No problem, I'm still tweeting. I'm engaged. I'm connected. I am the ultimate social media-user. Always talking, and seemingly, always listening. But recently I've started to wonder if, like many other things in life, we're beginning to over-schedule our Twitterselves to the point of uselessness.

Twitter was created to facilitate the sharing of information in real time. Avid social media users have told us that part of Twitter's magic is not only this idea of real-time sharing, but also the ability for unmatched transparency and authenticity in short bursts--the perfect way to show a little personality without sharing your life story.

This idea of keeping it real was what drew me to Twitter initially. But as social media has involved, it seems we've inevitably found a way to screw with Twitter's intended simplicity. The scheduled Tweet--and the motivations behind such an invention--may threaten the very truths that Twitter was built on.

This was a realization that screamed to me on the day of Steve Job's death. As expected, the Twittersphere blew up with Apple-related news, RIP wishes, and all things Steve Jobs. Sitting alone in my office I felt the camaraderie of my followers as we paused to mourn his loss. But then, suddenly, among well wishes and thoughts of sadness in my Twitterfeed, I saw it: "Have you checked out our Jeans sale? Only 30 minutes left! (link)."

I was thrown off. Weren't they paying attention? Hadn't they heard the news? But there it was again, from another user, embedded between Tweets of Steve Jobs-this, and RIP visionary-that: "8 ways to increase your ROI on Facebook: (link)."

It was then that I began to temporarily loathe the scheduled Tweet. It's not that the world should literally stop for the death of Steve Jobs, but there was something that seems almost sac-religious about Tweeting frivolities when the death of an icon is seemingly the only thing on everyone's mind.

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but when I schedule a Tweet it is generally for one or both of the following reasons:

1. The quest for perfect timing. I admit I'm a bit of a perfectionist. Naturally, then, I'm tickled by the fact I can perfectly space out the timing of my Tweets each day. This makes it appear as if i'm innately able to find the perfect balance between tweeting too much and not enough; too often as opposed to sporadically, and so on. In the quest for perfect timing I hope to walk the line between constant engagement and overwhelming the Twitterverse with my opinions. And there's nothing inherently wrong with this. But...

2. Maintaining and raising my Klout score. For those who are unfamiliar with this term, klout.com is a website that helps keep track of influence and reach on Twitter. For the social media-savvy, I'd wager to say it has become a legitimate means of not only verifying one's own status in the Twittersphere, but also for helping to analyze the most effective Tweeting strategies for both personal and business accounts. Klout started as a bit of a game for me, and I've used it to fuel some healthy inter-office competition. But as I've come to rely on social media not only for personal branding but also as a means for corporate interaction (and effectively, as a way to earn my pay check), I've started to take it much more seriously. What I've learned is that unless (or until) I become a celebrity, or until I'm able to spend 20 perfectly-spaced hours of my 24 hour day attached to my Twitter feed (props to those who actually succeed at this), maintaining and/or raising my Klout score is a difficult and frustrating task. The worst part? I actually care. I want a higher Klout score. I want to see that number go up each day. And so I  vacillate, but ultimately still schedule Tweets--albeit not often, but just enough to stay somewhat omnipresent.

I've started to wonder (as a good friend @jfurie brought to my attention) if Klout will catch onto Tweet-scheduling and other score-raising trends and be forced to change their algorithm, making it more difficult to cheat the system (much like Google has done with their adjustments to the SEO algorithm).

Ultimately, it comes down to authenticity. If content is authentic but timing is predetermined, how does this effect our over-all self-presentation? By postponing the conversation, do we lose meaning? What do you think?