I’m prepping to meet tomorrow with a biotech client about potential usage of social media. But in looking over the client’s website, and thinking about pharma SM issues, and reviewing my “Ten Consulting Questions”, I had to chuckle.
We’ll really be brainstorming a communications strategy.
Not a single one of the 10 main issues necessitates social media. It just happens to be a possible tool and approach. As neatly summarized by Geoff Livingston. And encapsulated in this quote from a rather provocative Ad Age article: “What if we stopped getting all hot and heavy over the latest new media success stories du jour, and starting realizing that the real triumph of…a campaign was the product and the story, not the channel used for storytelling?”
I don’t think I ever want to be a “social media guru.” I’d rather become an increasingly effective communications strategist. Who participates in and understands social networking.
We’re better off focusing on terms like community-building, connecting, and communicating. That’s the point. SM tactics are…well, tactics.
UPDATE: The meeting was fantastic…!
check out Jowyang’s post today on SM brands that succeeded and failed. Some interesting stuff. Not at all guru-ish; just common sense.
Well said. It’s a tool (although a newish one) in the toolbox. Remember when listservs were all the rage? Or bulletin boards? Good post, Steve. Thanks.
I second Jeannie’s comment. You post says what I inelegantly was trying to say at HealthCamp Boston. Let’s not get all excited just because a new technology is available. Let’s focus on what the technology can do to improve what we’re trying to do. If there’s an appropriate application for the new tool, that’s terrific. If not, don’t rush to adopt it just because it’s trendy.
The old, “if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” The channel is the least interesting thing about marketing, communication, and persuasion.