Program vs Always-On Social Content

When discussing content from a marketing perspective we must be focused on what is supposed to do. And let’s be clear, it is marketing so we are trying to sell something – an idea, product or service.

The biggest problem with that statement is that we must not look at every piece of content as “selling” content. There is a time and a place to use the platforms and content to drive and offer and work as low in the sales funnel as possible. I call them “programs”. Others call them campaigns. This is an effort surrounding one theme, product or event. Usually they have their own budgets and expected outcomes.

But there needs to be content in your calendar that allows followers to fall in love with your brand. This is not possible in the selling phase. Too much to ask. But the best brands do this. Nike, Starbucks and Wendy’s to name a few. (Full disclosure – Wendy’s is a client) They create always-on content that gives the consumer or potential consumer time to relax and relate to the brand. To enjoy each other and become “friends”. This content can be funny. It can also be educational or time saving. Look at it more as brand building.

It’s a fact in the social landscape that clicks and actions are not the only viable metric. I could argue that they are not even a good metric. That’s another post. But now platforms are measuring impressions. Facebook, Twitter and Instagram do this. And they have proven, with brand-lift studies and the like that these impressions are impacting the way a consumer thinks about your brand.

Lots to consider here. But the takeaway should be to lighten up on the sales talk in your social efforts. Even just a little. And when you need to run ads in here, do it, and when you can just engage and show a softer side, do that. There is no 8-step process here.

As always, please let me know if this makes sense or if you have a different though on the subject.

Program vs Always-On Social Content

Is Failure An Option?

I have been reading so many social posts and articles saying, “Fail hard and fail fast” and every time I scratch my head.

I work in advertising. Failure is not easily digested. Even when a client suggests we “test and learn” we all know we must test something that has a great probability of succeeding. With this the upside isn’t as high as if we take an idea with huge upside and really put effort behind it. That effort includes finding the right place on the calendar, the right partners and a fair amount of budget for production and amplification.

I have engaged on Twitter with many people on this topic. It seems to me this “rebellious” concept is better suited for the startup and inventor world. There you need to get to proof of concept and raise funds to take it to scale. Failure there seems to be black and white. Your concept is a game changer or it’s an also ran. Marketing has so much grey area.

In the agency world is is difficult reporting a “fail” to a client. But no more that a client has presenting up the ladder. So maybe we reset this thought. Maybe it’s one of those passing fads that agency people grabbed onto for a while and will let it go. I have.

Is Failure An Option?