Forest Through The Trees

 

Some of the major causes of death in the 18th Century were consumption, dropsy, and ague.  Thanks to stronger and more precise diagnostic technology, we can see that TB, heart diseases, and assorted bacterial infections were the detailed causes underlying these conditions.  Scientists developed the theories to model the reams of new data revealed to them, which enabled doctors to focus on treating the diseases, not the symptoms (as their predecessors had done).

I'm playing with how this might parallel today’s social media experience.  I really don't know where, or how far it goes.

Let's say that the initial state was the choice or rejection of brands.  There were a variety of reasons for purchase preference, but in an analog world, observation was broad, thematic, and imprecise.  We knew that functionality mattered, as did qualities of retail distribution; conversation mattered, too, along with general attributes of awareness.  Some brands thrived and others died, and much of the action that affected those outcomes happened "out there" in the mass media marketplace, literally "off the radar" available to marketers at the time.

Now, we have technology that can shed light on those activities, and enable new ones.  And what's getting revealed by the reams of new data:

• Functionality matters, which means design, sourcing, and manufacturing also have greater relevance (both as inputs into function, and also as ongoing visible attributes).
• Distribution matters, especially when it comes to service on the "back end," as there's no such thing any longer as a lone disappointed voice.
• Conversations matter, especially among trusted friends, and now they happen more often (though often with less substance). 
• Awareness is a factor, though this broad measure is probably the most impacted by the greater and deeper detail available on consumer conversation about functionality (again, broadly as "what the company does") and distribution (or "the reality of my experience").

This is where my parallel breaks down, though, because we haven't discovered anything new.

There's no fundamental cause or vector of transmission that didn't exist in one way or another for our forbearers in the 1950s.  We're seeing the same afflictions, only in a more granular and immediate way.  They're faster and more frequent, but the underlying causes of experience and conversation are driving opinions (and intent to buy) just like always.

The real breakdown happens when you consider that these underlying causes aren't necessarily in the realm of marketers' control.  The inputs to what should drive social media reside within the business operations, and in the substantive give-and-take with the outside world.  So when the vast majority of social media campaigns focus on sharing creative content, they're really taking a step back from the clarity of purpose we marketers used to bring to bear, aren't they?

It's as if medical explorers had elected to create new consumption treatments, or inventors created cooling suits and other merchandise for auge sufferers.

Are we seeing the forest through the trees?

Comments

[Carson]

" The inputs to what should drive social media reside within the business operations, and in the substantive give-and-take with the outside world. "

Yes! Sadly, many marketers view social media as an a priori strategy. As a result, they miss what actually drives conversation to begin with.

Had a client at previous workplace who wanted to create a "viral video." They were very disappointed in the results. Why? Because it was not as successful as a recent Starbucks video! This client, while a major brand, is not at all a conversational brand. They did not have the fundamental inputs in place to allow the conversation to happen.

If things keep going on like this, Jonathan, there's going to be a forest fire!