I think the issue is that people are still confusing tools with functions. Social media relations? Definitely falls under the PR umbrella, with a bit of support from customer service for the one-on-one as you mentioned. Interested in social media marketing? Then absolutely go with your marketing folks. Want to find ways to take advantage of these SM audiences through advertising? Then ask your ad guys.
The problem is when we see companies jumping into social media just to say they're jumping into social media -- no clear objective or direction is when we start to see the brain fog regarding who to consult (or who to pay).
Danny Brown
· 2 months ago
Great points Jenn - and a lot can be put down to crappy consultants that are advising businesses how to get involved...
rebeccahappy
· 2 months ago
Funny to read this..Are there people who are laying claim to ownership? I beleive to do business you need to have an exchange of sorts with individuals and it starts with a social interaction. Social media is just another way of being social. Human beings are social beings by nature. They will always find ways of connecting for transaction. Your categories describe how certain departments may choose to use it but behind the departments lay people who will also be social just in passing so may cross over into other departments as well. I suppose with new tools businesses have to see where they want to invest their resources. Initially internet access was very limited but now most businesses can't exist without it. I am sure that the same will come to be as we all get used to what these new tools can do for us.
Danny Brown
· 2 months ago
There's a lot of "ownership claims" from businesses that are looking to move into the space but are still trying to control their message, Rebecca. Sure, you can control how part of the message is portrayed (your side) but once you put something in public, it's no longer yours. The belief that "well, if Department X handles it because they did the previous incarnation" is still holding so many well-intentioned businesses back.
rebeccahappy
· 2 months ago
I work at a fairly large charity and we are bottle-necked with this kind of mindset. We are often very fear focused. Of course this is couched in bureaucratic jargon. For me I think it is too bad that we have to battle over these little things rather than embracing the new life that is brought about.
Jenn Mattern
· 2 months ago
I really feel your pain Rebecca. The politics of it all is precisely why I got out of nonprofit work and decided to go out on my own. The insanity and fights over every itty bitty thing were just ridiculous... not a very efficient way to cut costs and make sure enough of the funds were actually going to the people we were supposed to be helping. But I digress....
Mark Van Baale
· 2 months ago
Danny, The topic of "who owns social media?" has been around for so long. Everyone has their own thoughts of who should own it, but I agree with your viewpoint. No one owns social media. It would be like saying who owns TV? Who owns radio? No one does. Social media tools like Twitter, Facebook, blogs, etc. are platforms that enable conversations between people. No one owns how a person uses social media tools. Until companies start getting a clue that you cannot limit ownership of social media to one department or group, they will never get on board or understand the true value of it.
Danny Brown
· 2 months ago
It's funny you use radio and TV as two examples there, Mark - probably the two key candidates for "old" media practices (along with print), with their broadcast medium. The problem is, like you say, this is just limiting their appeal and reach, and once you place limits on something it's hard to not lose control through too much control.
Spot-on post and if anyone does "own/control" social media for businesses, it's the consumers that define how you act in the space.
SteveSeager
· 2 months ago
Nice post Danny...and great comment from Jenn too. Just blogged on the very same topic after a client conversation yesterday. http://tiny.cc/KsEO1
I totally agree. But there are two separate issues.
1. The 'rules of engagement' in social media. I do think PR have the edge on others in the understanding of what it means to be 'social'.
However,
2. The way you use the channel (to achieve what business goals) should determine 'ownership'. Social media channels shouldn't float in a company without direction. Someone proactively needs to take responsibility.
Jenn Mattern
· 2 months ago
"The way you use the channel (to achieve what business goals) should determine 'ownership'. Social media channels shouldn't float in a company without direction. Someone proactively needs to take responsibility."
I'd say the ultimate goal would be to educate management enough on SM issues to make them capable of taking responsibility -- delegating appropriate tasks and uses of social media channels to appropriate departments throughout an organization.
Danny Brown
· 2 months ago
Hey there Steve,
Ha, I was going to use a similar image for my post - spooky ;-)
Agreed - wherever the organization needs to be is who ultimately has "control" of social media. Work alongside a robust social policy and you're pretty much good to go and leading the way - just don't get caught up in politics about who owns cross-culture social media. Instead, make it happen and make it collaborative.
I'm not sure if I'd agree on the "PR have the edge on others" thought - I come across plenty PR owners and agencies where that's anything but the case. There are obviously exceptions to the rule, but I often find that much of PR is reactionary as opposed to pro-action. It is changing, mind you, so maybe in six months time I'll be looking at it differently. :)
Cheers!
Matt Batt
· 2 months ago
Love this topic as it is one that I hear with every organization I work with. You've hit it on the head by saying many departments should own a piece of it. When ever I've been asked that question I typically say...your advocates or quoting Seth Godin your Tribe. But technically speaking internal responsibility absolutely should be spread throughout your organization.
Here is my follow-up question...are we doing a good enough job advocating and educating the general business world about the value of social media or this new & powerful word of mouth approach? Yes, all of us communications, PR and marketing folks are figuring it all out but as usual we sit in our silos and advocate. No offense but more than not thats often what we do in our industry. Personally, I think its time we did some advocating with the c-suite, the VP of sales, the director of HR, etc.
If no one owns social media within the organization...what can we do to make sure everyone outside of "marketing" understands and embraces its power?
Danny Brown
· 2 months ago
Great question Matt. At Maritz Canada, part of my role in socializing the company is "educating" the VP's, the ELT's and other executives as to the true benefits and metrics of social. Showing where it's needed, where it can be more effective, how it can work with existing business plans, how to "re-sell" to clients, etc.
To spread the message more, we need to involve the company story and its employees - we'll only get the sea change if the mindset changes, and to do that it all needs to relate. Real-life examples, how the company can offer the same but on their "terms", achievable goals and time-scales.
I believe companies genuinely want to get into this space - we just need to make sure we're holding their hands properly and showing them how the path is tread, not why it needs to be journeyed.
Justin Parks
· 2 months ago
I cant remember ever buying the rights to social media... damn, I missed the boat on that one.
"Owned" is possibly a misnomer on this occasion Danny. Controlled might be a better description, and the issue most companies are facing is this exact lack of control and consequently , lack of responsibility when engaging in social media.
As you mentioned, what Mark Van Baale said about TV, radio and print not being owned is interesting as actually, they are under a strict control regime, whether its legal, company policy or the broadcasters policy, someone somewhere in those organisations has the final say on the words and message that are broadcast so I would disagree and say it is owned, just not by us.
Social media is not the same. If you want to write it you can, tell your friends and associates about something, you can, make a video and send it out there, go right ahead and its this that companies are seriously struggling to comprehend. Lack of consistent and maintained control and regulation.
They can either address it and understand it, hence they can adapt and work alongside it, or they can ignore it, stick their heads in the sand, brush it of as a fad and on their own heads be it.
No single department can control the use of social media, its up to business to take a fresh look at what's going on and basically, get smart about it, first and foremost before anyone can start claiming rights to utilising it internally.
God almighty I can go on, can't I. :)
Danny Brown
· 2 months ago
Ah, now this is why I love blog comments over a Twitter convo - you can really open up on some great views and let it roll :)
Possibly a misnomer, and I agree where you're coming from (though if something is owned, you control how it's presented so maybe a mix of both?).
I've often wondered about the single department - or, more specifically, single team. But it needs a key person from each sector - so, customer service, finance, legal, PR, marketing, creative, advertising, HR, etc. Each person would be a senior employee from that sector and know all the ins and outs of how that department works, so can make judgment calls on social media feasibility per project. Then, go back to their respective departments, crack out the strategy, and regroup and move on from there.
But is that too simple or in danger of becoming convoluted then?
Jayme Soulati
· 2 months ago
So great to get your view, Danny. Have been tweeting this very question of late as it's been posed in ad trades and elsewhere on social media platforms. As a PR pro, it's shades of the integrated marcom fiasco of the late '80s/'90s when the intent was golden and the reality never saw the light of day. Considered, usually, the ugly step child in the mix, PR is a critical quotient to this question. There's enough of a piece for us all. ~Jayme Soulati (http://www.soulati.com)
Jamie Favreau
· 2 months ago
I have to agree. Social Media goes over multiple platforms and some should have the part they are best at doing.
OchoJoe
· 2 months ago
Hey Danny - good post and an interesting discussion.
Your post headline caught my attention from a different angle. It seems like there has been an increase in the whining from social media elitists about how the social space is developing. Some very well respected social media practitioners seem to be getting overly worked up about the snake-oil peddlers attracted to the "social media guru" title. To me, that is akin to whining about corruption in politics.
More on topic with your post, I believe that governance is key to un-owning the message. Companies should provide employees with fences around the use of social tools. This allows each silo or dept to interact with the messaging as appropriate for their specific discipline. This is the approach that one of my clients is currently taking and it seems to be working. There are tweeks along the way, but to date it is coming together nicely.
Danny Brown
· 2 months ago
Hey there Joe,
Nice analogy between politics and social media - I guess when any platform becomes "mainstream" there are going to be those who feel it's "their baby". Which seems to go against the whole "being social" mantra... ;-)
Initializing a social policy is one of the key areas that so many businesses fail on (and, to be fair, a few consultants seem to skip over...). Sure, the platform is open (and don't try and restrict it), but there still needs to be a proactive uniformed message along with the open one.
John Haydon
· 2 months ago
Danny - Human Resources owns a part of social media as well. If create an environment that produces happy, empowered employees (like at Zappos or Netflix), they'll be saying good things about the company on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.
Danny Brown
· 2 months ago
Definitely John, and that's one of the first things to make sure you get right - be a people strategist company first and foremost and then start from there.
John Haydon
· 2 months ago
Got it.
Rachel Levy
· 2 months ago
I agree completely. As long as we don't confuse "own" with "lead." I do think someone has to LEAD social media. And, being that it concerns the outward facing reputation of the company, I do think the Marketing or PR would be best to lead the process. You?
Danny Brown
· 2 months ago
For sure, Rachel - there definitely needs to be some form of guidance otherwise it could soon fall into the crazy pit! ;-)
Having said that, if it's down to the "outward facing reputation of the company", you could point at external sales, or customer service, who're both visible to the incoming consumer. Marketing and PR are strong contenders, but I'm not sure either should be leading the process - an amalgamation of core reputation faces/sectors instead, perhaps?
Rachel Levy
· 2 months ago
Possibly. It will depend on how the company is run. When I worked at Kraft, Sales and Customer Service basically had a dotted line into Marketing, as Marketing was considered the brand owner. Not every company is like that though.
MSchechter
· 2 months ago
Totally agree with everything you are saying, but I think Rachel makes an essential point that while everyone needs to be involved and have ownership. Someone or a small team to coordinate the efforts.
The other problem is smaller organizations where those departments don't even want to be a part of the SM efforts, none the less own it.
All Comments
The problem is when we see companies jumping into social media just to say they're jumping into social media -- no clear objective or direction is when we start to see the brain fog regarding who to consult (or who to pay).
I suppose with new tools businesses have to see where they want to invest their resources. Initially internet access was very limited but now most businesses can't exist without it. I am sure that the same will come to be as we all get used to what these new tools can do for us.
Spot-on post and if anyone does "own/control" social media for businesses, it's the consumers that define how you act in the space.
I totally agree. But there are two separate issues.
1. The 'rules of engagement' in social media. I do think PR have the edge on others in the understanding of what it means to be 'social'.
However,
2. The way you use the channel (to achieve what business goals) should determine 'ownership'. Social media channels shouldn't float in a company without direction. Someone proactively needs to take responsibility.
I'd say the ultimate goal would be to educate management enough on SM issues to make them capable of taking responsibility -- delegating appropriate tasks and uses of social media channels to appropriate departments throughout an organization.
Ha, I was going to use a similar image for my post - spooky ;-)
Agreed - wherever the organization needs to be is who ultimately has "control" of social media. Work alongside a robust social policy and you're pretty much good to go and leading the way - just don't get caught up in politics about who owns cross-culture social media. Instead, make it happen and make it collaborative.
I'm not sure if I'd agree on the "PR have the edge on others" thought - I come across plenty PR owners and agencies where that's anything but the case. There are obviously exceptions to the rule, but I often find that much of PR is reactionary as opposed to pro-action. It is changing, mind you, so maybe in six months time I'll be looking at it differently. :)
Cheers!
Here is my follow-up question...are we doing a good enough job advocating and educating the general business world about the value of social media or this new & powerful word of mouth approach? Yes, all of us communications, PR and marketing folks are figuring it all out but as usual we sit in our silos and advocate. No offense but more than not thats often what we do in our industry. Personally, I think its time we did some advocating with the c-suite, the VP of sales, the director of HR, etc.
If no one owns social media within the organization...what can we do to make sure everyone outside of "marketing" understands and embraces its power?
To spread the message more, we need to involve the company story and its employees - we'll only get the sea change if the mindset changes, and to do that it all needs to relate. Real-life examples, how the company can offer the same but on their "terms", achievable goals and time-scales.
I believe companies genuinely want to get into this space - we just need to make sure we're holding their hands properly and showing them how the path is tread, not why it needs to be journeyed.
"Owned" is possibly a misnomer on this occasion Danny. Controlled might be a better description, and the issue most companies are facing is this exact lack of control and consequently , lack of responsibility when engaging in social media.
As you mentioned, what Mark Van Baale said about TV, radio and print not being owned is interesting as actually, they are under a strict control regime, whether its legal, company policy or the broadcasters policy, someone somewhere in those organisations has the final say on the words and message that are broadcast so I would disagree and say it is owned, just not by us.
Social media is not the same. If you want to write it you can, tell your friends and associates about something, you can, make a video and send it out there, go right ahead and its this that companies are seriously struggling to comprehend. Lack of consistent and maintained control and regulation.
They can either address it and understand it, hence they can adapt and work alongside it, or they can ignore it, stick their heads in the sand, brush it of as a fad and on their own heads be it.
No single department can control the use of social media, its up to business to take a fresh look at what's going on and basically, get smart about it, first and foremost before anyone can start claiming rights to utilising it internally.
God almighty I can go on, can't I. :)
Possibly a misnomer, and I agree where you're coming from (though if something is owned, you control how it's presented so maybe a mix of both?).
I've often wondered about the single department - or, more specifically, single team. But it needs a key person from each sector - so, customer service, finance, legal, PR, marketing, creative, advertising, HR, etc. Each person would be a senior employee from that sector and know all the ins and outs of how that department works, so can make judgment calls on social media feasibility per project. Then, go back to their respective departments, crack out the strategy, and regroup and move on from there.
But is that too simple or in danger of becoming convoluted then?
Your post headline caught my attention from a different angle. It seems like there has been an increase in the whining from social media elitists about how the social space is developing. Some very well respected social media practitioners seem to be getting overly worked up about the snake-oil peddlers attracted to the "social media guru" title. To me, that is akin to whining about corruption in politics.
More on topic with your post, I believe that governance is key to un-owning the message. Companies should provide employees with fences around the use of social tools. This allows each silo or dept to interact with the messaging as appropriate for their specific discipline. This is the approach that one of my clients is currently taking and it seems to be working. There are tweeks along the way, but to date it is coming together nicely.
Nice analogy between politics and social media - I guess when any platform becomes "mainstream" there are going to be those who feel it's "their baby". Which seems to go against the whole "being social" mantra... ;-)
Initializing a social policy is one of the key areas that so many businesses fail on (and, to be fair, a few consultants seem to skip over...). Sure, the platform is open (and don't try and restrict it), but there still needs to be a proactive uniformed message along with the open one.
Having said that, if it's down to the "outward facing reputation of the company", you could point at external sales, or customer service, who're both visible to the incoming consumer. Marketing and PR are strong contenders, but I'm not sure either should be leading the process - an amalgamation of core reputation faces/sectors instead, perhaps?
Sales and Customer Service basically had a dotted line into Marketing, as
Marketing was considered the brand owner. Not every company is like that
though.
The other problem is smaller organizations where those departments don't even want to be a part of the SM efforts, none the less own it.