I don't know what's worse – marketers and advertisers being
infatuated with the social media frenzy, or the fact that an application as ugly as MySpace has led the way. I know, I
know... I'm not being "with it." But every week I research news and trends for articles on internet Display or Search
advertising, and all I find are articles about Social Networking.
In today's MediaPost article "Social Marketing Limited
by Advertiser Confusion" Mark Walsh sites a recent JupiterResearch study that says actual advertising spend on social media has not "caught up with hype surrounding the emerging category." I'm not surprised.
As an online marketer, I know we like to jump on the latest
trends and technology, in a constant search for that silver bullet – the answer to our ROI dreams. But putting all
our eggs in this basket is like taking the "blue pill" – we wake up, and believe whatever we want to believe. (Of COURSE the
future of online marketing is social media – even though research points to the fact that, increasingly, people don't
want to be advertised to. But let's go invade the sanctity of their private MySpace and Facebook pages anyway.)
How about we take the "red pill" and find out just
how deep the rabbit hole really goes? What do consumers really want? What products are they interested in? Are they already my
customer, or am I talking to a prospect? While entire companies are rising out of social media advertising, like
Umbria whose product claims to gauge a people's demographics by which words they use when writing, how are we really using this
technology? And, is it more important than improving our Display and Search campaigns? Jupiter reported that half of
advertisers are spending less than 5% on social media. This, coupled with mixed reports this year
on the declining usage of Facebook and MySpace might cast aspersions on this popular new kid. If nothing else, we certainly know that audiences are
fickle, and social networking requires a substantial investment of time.
– Layne Salter