It's late. I'm just back from a week of travel and crazy amounts of email (note to other CEOs, when emailing 120K people with a special offer, be wary of putting your email address as the reply-to). I had a terrific time at the Online Marketing Summit - great people, many of whom I'd never met before, an impressive turnout of more than 500 (even in a down economy; wow!) and some terrific networking parties (the conference even featured catered dinner for the attendees, which was really nice). One of the subjects that arose, as usual, was the emergence and power of social media, and I had some quick thoughts to share.
Social media has emerged as a "next big thing," but in fact, it's been around since the dawn of the Internet. Forums are social media. EBay is social media. Craigslist and Epinions and Friendster (remember those guys?) are social media, too. There's definitely a lot to like, but I worry that businesses and marketers are going crazy over social right now simply because it's hot. This is almost always a bad idea - go after a new channel because there's value, a path to revenue and a solid set of tactics that fit with your overall strategy, not just because it's in the press all the time.
Social media is great for:
- Connecting with your users (assuming they're already on social media platforms and talking about you)
- Building another channel for communication, branding & messaging
- Appealing to early adopters
- Wasting time on non-business essential communication :-)
But it can't do what search/SEO does:
- Answer a direct need precisely when it's requested in a scalable fashion
- Gain visibility from virtually all Internet users with an interest in your brand/product/sector/content at once
And if you're ignoring other important fundamentals of online marketing, like:
- Building a website with a unique value proposition
- Creating amazingly useful content that people want to share
- Conducting effective email marketing
- Finding ways to scalably acquire new users & retain existing ones
- Leveraging conversion funnels & conversion testing
- PPC
You should probably concentrate on those first. Don't get me wrong - I love social media (I even wrote a post on social media for CEOs). We have a Twitter account, a Facebook group, lots of clients whom we've helped with social strategies and a ton of experience getting value out of the process, but I worry about the obsession overpowering the logic. When that happens, we see bubbles - don't let a social media bubble cloud your business' real returns from any marketing effort.
Looking forward to dissenting opinions (as always).
p.s. Big thanks go out to Aaron Kahlow and the rest of the OMS crew. I've been to a lot of conferences, and this was certainly one of the most professional, impressive and well-organized. Oh, and for those seeking some humor, Jeff Rohrs dug up this classic gem thanks to a fun chat we had at the show - $240 worth of pudding.
Speaking to your last point, one issue I've had with clients (especially small businesses) lately is that they don't have any sense of what their goals are with social media. I think we flock to things like Twitter not only because they're social and fun, but because they have short-term rewards and success metrics. You can see your follower count grow, get a score on TwitterGrader, etc. Set up a profile on Facebook, and you'll see your friend count grow, get invited to groups, get tagged in photos, and on and on.
Problem is, what do these goals really have to do with their business? Theoretically, they could be a benefit, but not without some plan or path for how to use that channel for marketing/sales. Without that plan, hitting 500 followers on Twitter is no more useful to their business than hitting level 50 on World of Warcraft.
Dude, you show me someone who's hit level 50 on World of Warcraft and that's someone I want to do business with - so don't go saying there's no value. Have you hit level 50????
My wife won't even let me play. You got me - I'm just jealous. More than anything, I wish I had a 70th-level Blood Elf Paladin, 20,000 followers on Twitter, and could beat my little brother at Rock Band 2.
Do you know how much you can sell a level 50 for?
(only rememebers selling a few level 65s on everquest for a grand)
I once worked with an intern who bragged that he had a level 50 character on World of Warcraft.
I told him it sounded like a lot of lost time to me.
He said, "my friend just sold his level 50 for $900, though."
So I did the math for him (since WoW shows you how many hours you've spent playing a character).
It turned out he had earned a whopping $3.50/hr playing WoW.
lol I just dinged 60 with my Death Knight and my Shadow Priest ;)
But in all seriousness I think there are some strong arguements on both sides of the fence here. Ultimately what it comes down to is knowing YOUR business, and YOUR client base. Some companies are destined to rock at social media, while others not so much.
But ultimately, EVERYONE should be searchable.
-zerbetron from Customer Magnetism
Just hit 70 on my Night Elf Druid o0
I play wow to replace my acrodims. Insted of SEO, SERP, POSH I get to think in terms of l2w, agro, npc and pwnd >.<
SEO/Search Marketing is great if people are already looking for your company, product or service - otherwise its not going to do you any good.
I don't think it has ever been proven that search marketing can actually stimulate demand for a product or service.
Traditional broadcast type advertising (whether it be online or offline) is still a proven way to introduce products, services, or companies to a wide range of people.
After people are interested, search marketing can step in and lead them to you.
Social media is about conversations and about sharing - so I'm not sure Craigslist (and I'm a big user) is really social marketing.
And e-bay and epinions are feedback systems, but conversations are more than just feedback.
Social media can do the following:
- Create and nurture fans who will be more likely to try any future products or services. Search marketing can't do this.
- Have conversations with your users about what products or services the company should work on developing. Search marketing can't do this.
- Allow you to introduce your products and services to potential customers in a way that may be more effective. Search marketing can't do this.
Don't get me wrong, Search Marketing is a necessity. It is like having a sign over the door of your business - you just have to have it so people can find you.
But its not going to get them to walk in unless they are already looking for what you have to offer.
Social media isn't just the next big thing - its becoming the next required thing. Much like that sign over the door. Companies that don't have it are going to look very old and dated very quickly.
Companies are now finding that pages on Facebook and accounts on Twitter are just as important as having their own web page.
The reason is that their users are almost demanding it.
Can that be said of SEO?
(I had a whole YOUmoz post I was thinking about in regards to this very topic - oh well).
Referrals from Digg, for Chicago Tribune only, rivals the traffic we receive from Google.
Depends on who you are and how focused you are on it. We also own L.A. Times and it hasn't even came close to the same successes yet. Why? Haven't focused on it yet.
Social Media could replace the need for Search in the proper environment. Take this example from my Twitter feed today.
I wanted to know which service I should use as an AT&T WebEx substitute. What did I do? Did I Google for a replacement? NOPE! I sent out a quick 140 character tweet. Left to do something else, came back 5 minutes later and had EXPERT, TRUSTED, opinions on what solutions I could use. Human based . . . not algorithm based.
Here is a link to the responses (well sort of, churn through a little). Granted I have 15,000 followers so response come more quickly and I am able to compile the results more easily but . . . it's where Social Media can go. It can be the Borg.
https://search.twitter.com/search?q=+since%3A2009-02-09+until%3A2009-02-09+brentdpayne
Social Media = The Borg
Search = Brainiac
Both are powerful . . . both intelligent, just different structure.
Excellent points Brent. The Digg statistic is telling.
Twitter really has become a lot of things to a lot of people (RSS Feed, Public Relations Channel, Instant Messaging, MicroBlogging, URL Sharing, etc.) But yeah, I use it as an alternative to search also.
Although I usually hear crickets in return since I don't have the followers Brent has.
And, just this morning David Lindop tweeted a questions asking what MozRank was supposed to represent - and he got at least two answers that I know of (courtesy of Jane and Rishi).
"I wanted to know which service I should use as an AT&T WebEx substitute. What did I do?"
Asked on a forum and got nearly the same result if not better?
Perhaps yall need to hire randfish to optimize your Tribune properties. ;)
"Social media is great for... But it can't do what search/SEO does..."
It seems like your intent is to prove the value of search over social media.
The reality is that these are entirely independent disciplines that have little to do with each other, except that the Internet is the common medium.
Comparing the two is useless.
"Comparing the two is useless"
I humbly disagree - comparing the two is done on a daily basis by C-level executives who are convinced that social media is the cure for everything, while ignoring the importance of search-ability.
They are apple and oranges, and should be treated as such. Until we reach a day when executives realize this, we're going to continue to see articles such as these because it is so prevalent in everyday business tactics to completely ignore SEO for the sake of Social Media.
"They are apple and oranges, and should be treated as such."
Sta12s - with this statement you're simply reinforcing my point. Obviously you're familiar with the quote "It's like comparing apples & oranges". In other words, you're comparing two entirely different entities.
As for your implication that companies completely ignoe SEO for the sake of Social Media; any definitive statement like this is an absolute exaggeration.
Regarding the strategies companies choose, I think that has more to do with guaranteeing reach to definitive targets, versus hoping for the best, which is what SEO is. At any moment other competitiors can knock you out of a SERP position and reduce your hard work and investment significantly.
In Social Media you can target a specific audience with specific messages. In paid search as long as you pay to play you can have relaitvely assured position and results. That's why paid search is a $10Bn/year business and SEO is still under $1Bn.
That said, I'm not arguing against SEO. I'm simply saying that each of these strategies has it's place, and what a company chooses to invest their marketing dollars in is dependent on what most suits their goals and objectives.
This all goes back to my original point that it is useless to compare the two - especially in a post that clearly shows a bias for Search and a relative disdain Social as a waste of time - even if that disdain is cloaked with a statement such as "Don't get me wrong - I love social media". I don't beleive that statement for a moment, particularly when the evidence (see @seomoz and @randfish), demonstrates the exact opposite. Actions always speak louder than words.
Sean...
BOTH are forms of internet marketing.
Hi Sean,
Yes, apples and oranges are very tasty ;)
"As for your implication that companies completely ignoe SEO for the sake of Social Media; any definitive statement like this is an absolute exaggeration."
I wish it were an exaggeration - It's happening right now within my current organization. If it were not for my efforts (as a user-interface developer) our marketing team would have [and has] blown right past any form of optimization. Which leads to the next point ...
You are 100% correct;
"That said, I'm not arguing against SEO. I'm simply saying that each of these strategies has it's place, and what a company chooses to invest their marketing dollars in is dependent on what most suits their goals and objectives."
Which is the point of [internet] marketing! :)
So yes, I agree with you on all your points. I also believe that if you do not follow the builts listed in this article (minus the PPC), you're going to have a poor-user experience and a high bounce rate. It's nice to have some "support" stating you can't toss the baby out with the bath-water when you're trying to argue with a marketing executive who has jumped on the social band wagon (have to love those cliches). I am very tired of trying to justify the importance of either of these methods - they are cyclic and feed off-of /into each other. Having said that, I have seen organizations skip both of these strategies - needless to say, they don't survive very long.
On a side note, I'd like to point out that most SEO objectives are achieved through proper coding techniques combined with focused branding and keyword targeting on the site. IMHO, that is the real reason that SEO isn't over a billion - it's because worker-bees like myself make a consious effort to adhere to semantic coding methods for organic + 508.
It's hard to drag these "buzzworders" back onto the track, isn't it?
i think SMO and SEO are highly inter-related, sean. both (if done well) get exposure for your brand and products, and success in one area can give you a leg up for success in the other.
but i do agree that i don't think it's productive to argue which channel is "better" at some abstract, theoretical level. each represents a set of tools you can use to accomplish specific business goals.
if i want people to engage with my brand at a more personal, conversational level, i'd do well to start blogging, commenting on other blogs, following people on twitter, etc.
if i want a steady stream of high-margin traffic to specific product pages on my site, i'd do well to publish some really valuable content about those products and support them with a link building campaign.
if i'm an affiliate who has a vendor offer to pay me for as many leads as i can drive to a high-converting form over the course of 3 days, i'd do well to get a PPC campaign set up quickly.
i think we can all agree that different marketing channels exist to serve different purposes. unfortunately, there are lots of tools in both SMO and SEO that are being used by companies, but not executed with clearly defined goals and success metrics in mind.
I'd strongly encourage everybody to take a look at this post by John Bortwick
https://www.borthwick.com/weblog/2009/02/05/creative-destruction-google-slayed-by-the-notificator/
Comparing the two is useless unless you are running a business struggling in a disasterous economy. Am I the only one who has clients who are hurting now? Since Ogilvy dispelled the notion of "Branding" as a marketing strategy 50 years ago, it constantly rears its ugly head. The purpose of marketing is increase sales and revenues. I bill my clients in dollars and they expect my work to increase sales. SEO and Social Media are tools. SEO is about 10 times as powerful. I have clients who work about 3 hours a day and earn over 150K a month because of pure SEO. I don't have a single client, nor have I seen a client make anywhere near that kind of jing from a social media strategy. I have clients who own social media sites, they hire me to SEO their sites.
Social Media is the domain of developers. If you are a creative, and talented developer you can create an incredible site that gets huge page views and generates a nice imcome from banner sales etc. But for pure marketing of a run of the mill product or service, I can certainly compare the two. If you are selling sump pumps, cosmetic dentistry, or CRM software and you came to me for marketing advise and asked me to create a budget it would go 90% to SEO SEM and 10% to social media.
You know what never gets talked about while everyone is foaming at the mouth about social media -- usability. How about building a site that is easy to navigate, loads quickly, gives compelling reasons to buy a product and has a clear call to action.
In this economy, at the end of the day, my clients want sales. Give me a clean usable site that has great content, a great writers who knows ther business, and a link monkey and I will make that client very very happy. cannot say the same for Social Media.
The only exception is blogging. Blogging is still way way underated and undervalued as social media. Unfortunately most bloggers think that blogging is something you do alone. Get multiple writers to contribute to a blog - that's social media you can get results with.
Right Right Right...
It's not that an organization shouldn't engage in social media, it's that an organization should aim it's efforts at the biggest opportunities. 90-ish % of all web users use email and search daily. 16% (according to eMarketer) hit a social netowrk once a month.
As Seth Godin says on this subject: "We havent yet mastered email and search and here we are rushing to facebook and twitter" (ok, I might be paraphrasing Seth a little) The point is that marketers are hot on the new shiny thing and hate blocking and tackling. data and content in both email and search will drive way more engagement than anything one could do on facebook.
Chris BaggottCEOCompendium Blogwarewww.compendiumblogware.com
Chris - that's exactly what I was trying to say, put more elegantly. Thanks :)
Social media is a low-quality substitute for "real" internet marketing, invented by right-brained people who lack the technical knowledge and logical reasoning that SEO requires.
Okay I dissent. Maybe it's late or your brain is muddled by the sheer number of emails you've responded to recently but you're dissenting with yourself. On one hand you say that social media has "been around since the dawn of the Internet" and barely a few breaths later you call it "a new channel". Yes, it has been around for awhile, no, it is not a new channel.
What's new is that brands are discovering the value in social media so the bandwagon is growing. Focus groups are out, conversation monitoring is in. Reach and frequency, gone as well and engagement is the new metric. My dissenting point is that social media is more powerful than search. Search leads you to the water but it can't make you drink. Social media makes you drink cause your "friends" are not only drinking, they are telling you how wonderful the water is (or not).
Yes, it is a two edge sword but managed right social media can change the way the world views your products or services and that's what makes it so compelling. Now if brands could only get it right.
Here's the real problem with social media.
David - I think I disagree. Both social media and search can lead you to water, they just do it differently. Search does it when you're asking for it and in a scalable fashion to everyone who asks. Social does it temporally and tempermentally and while it's great to be part of that conversation, if 50,000 people want "red widgets" via search each month, there's probably 50 of them talking about it on social media, and only 10% of them are going to click your link.
I guess my big complaint is that people are putting the horse before the cart. If you don't have the basics of great content, a great site, a solid marketing strategy, SEO, PPC, conversion rate optimization, etc. down first, you're probably not grabbing your lowest hanging fruit with social media. It's a valuable, powerful tactic, but the time investment to ROI often makes it much less valuable unless you've got all those other pieces in place first.
I disagree...
Social is a coke machine that your friend just got a soda out of..
Search is a glass of water WHEN YOU ARE THIRSTY!!!
=)
Awesome quote . . . vote for inclusion in 'top quotes on SEOmoz' when that list is made.
Thanks Brent...
=)
Okay we agree to disagree. Actually you are right and yet I can show you some case studies of companies that grew tremendously through social media that wouldn't have had a chance with search. Why? Because they don't sell red widgets. So they are the exception instead of the case, which is why you are right. I just had to dissent because you asked me to ;)
Much appreciated - I think there's definitely power to social media and certainly some of the experiences and examples described here could speak to its value.
Of course you need content first.. I think when mentioning social media one should also mention viral marketing. It's some sort of viral marketing that can gain you significant traffic at no cost. It would not be a smart move to not try to get something out of sm.
social media more powerful then search?? yeah thats why google is struggling so much now that digg and reddit are on the scene.
I've seen this mindset before, where traditional advertising methods actually backfire in a social media campaign. In a sense, this is a good thing; it lets the rest of the world know who the odd ones out are. My favorite summary of this is best expressed by How to Use Twitter for PR and Marketing; whoever put this gem together is brilliant!
Ranked by importance:
1. Great product or service (helps a great deal!)
2. User centered content
---------------------------
3. Search (if you have 1. already, thats just tuning and technology)
4. PR
5. Social
Social media can't make a site rank for the three Ps, finance and the like. Sites need a massive number of links for that, and being dugg doesn't attract links in the sort of quantities you need. Social media can play a part, but these people who think that digging stuff all day and chatting with friends are either after a different goal with their online marketing, or they're delusional. There is also a difference between including outstanding content on a site and messing around with social media fluff. Plenty of people achieve remarkable success with social media, but rarely does anyone else notice. Ironic, isn't it?For many, being a "social media expert" is just an excuse for a) kdnowing little about technical SEO and link builing, and b) buggering about on Twitter all day.
Spoken with truth :)
I'd have to agree with you Rand and go back to something that you have mentioned way back when in your previous post about the SEO Pyramid.
It's true that Social Media can provide a lot of hype about your products and seemingly "lead the pack to water." Unfortunately I don't think that it is in the best interestet of the company if they have not yet fully developed their unique content. (Or other bases of the SEO Pyramid)
Simply put, social media provides a lot of hype for a company, but if a competitor were to ride on your coat tails of all your hype and provide better content in the process... Eventually someone is going to point the competitor out and say "hey look, these guys do the same thing, but better!"
Just as companies should ensure that they carry a quality product before putting it out on the market, so too should companies ensure they have a quality developed website before they start sending people to it virally.
It usually takes one conversation to convince a client on search over social, especially in this economy. I find it very difficult to put a dollar value on social media promotion and so do clients.
I thought this was obviouse. search will and has always been king. "search for meaning" "search for knowledge"
people want to know about what they think is important first, then they can see what other people think is important.
Part of me agrees with David, in that links were the old way of navigating the net before search engines were created and even after, they were regularly used before the SERPS became reasonably relevant.
However, it is showing signs of becoming a bubble due to the huge number of people jumping on the bandwagon without fully understanding how to create a structured campaign and then how to properly implement it. I'm no expert but I know that creating a facebook page and spamming some half-assed content onto digg and then linking to it from twitter isn't going to provide much value.
It really all boils down to the same thing that makes a website successful and valuable along with linkbait, attractive, useful content.
As you say, social media marketing is just another part of a greater plan and not a panacea itself.
I have had clients who could only succeed through social media and ones who can only succeed through seo. You cannot compare apples and oranges every single time saying they are both fruits anyways. IMHO, such compariative generalization articles are like search lights that point you to the shallow reefs rather than the harbor, To generalize a statement like "you should may be focus on PPC or SEO or email marketing before social media" is simply wrong as it does not apply to every single company/industry/individual. By the way, how many reply emails did you get? I was going to reply till I realized probably 1000 other people would. I felt your pain even then.
it’s a valid subject to discuss. Despite the fact that search will always be king no question because people care about what they want to know first before others. They are both ways of finding info on the web and can be compared. Social media, seeps from peoples bookmarks into mainstream media, TV and newspapers. This can not be said for search because in search people have to know about you before you really get any traffic. Social media you can come out of nowhere. This is a valid subject. Stop being a stupid ignorant marketer.
Coming from a E-Commerce point of view, search has simply proven time and time again (to me) to be more powerful than Social Media.
We dedicate an amazing amount of time to both organic search and social media (facebook, myspace, twitter, niche social communities) for our e-commerce websites as they both have their own unique strengths and weaknesses; But organic search such as Google, Yahoo, MSN, AOL, etc. simply continue to earn us more money every single day/week/month/year.
Analytics don't lie. Though our Per Visit Value may be on par with Search through Myspace for example, it's 500 click thrus in the past few months (from thousands of targetted friends) simply cannot compete with our 150k+ from organic Google.
I think that Social Media is great for building awareness among other things, but all the friends, bulletins, and tweets in the world simply can't compare to the power of owning top search engine rankings.
That's my $0.02 - from somebody who studies the numbers every day.
As with any marketing tool, a well-thought out plan is the best way to approach it. Social media should be thought of as another arrow in the marketing quiver ... Gail
Both SEO and social media marketing complement each other. If you map your company’s value chain you will find that social media is much bigger that you think. Social media can be used in product development, HR, marketing etc. When there is a clear demand for your products you need SEO.
Blogging is also a type of social media that for example have been used the best way by Seomoz. Maybe no one would have heard of seomoz without this blog. Unlike SEO though there is no there is no proven successful strategies for using social media that can make you with confidence expect a positive ROI on your investment.
Socila media is just getting started, it is not fair to compare, its like comparing AOL to Google, 1995 compared to now, common now, social media is automatic and is the wheel that runs googles grinder
"Wasting time on non-business essential communication" that's true or why would I be here doing this! I do like social media but in my (albeit somewhat limited) experience it's not as powerful as SEO.
Sitting in the PubCon keynote, Guy Kawasaki just weighed in on this subject seconds ago: "Twitter is the best thing to happen to the Internet since search."
There are all these newly unemployed people who can use open source products such as mySQL and other free stuff, and they can market it through Twitter - also free and you don't need costly SEOs to help you out - and when you get to the VCs, you already have something that's working, including the marketing.
And the keynote is concluded on this note!
I have to participate in this arguement everyday know, it took facebook and twitter to awaken so many companies to search marketing, except now they would rather build a twitter following than build a strong link campaign.
Rand, I am not fully agree with you. Nowadays people spend more time in socila networking sites. Direct marketing is not possible always through socila networking sites. But now we are brand concious. We share every thing in socila networking sites. when we buy a new iPad, share it in fB with my friends. then discuss it with frinds. getting inspired from this discussion some friends buy the same Configuratio. So how can you ignore the importance of Social Media?
I totally agree with that! Social network is not everything until you use your creativity to bring a buzz and attract potential prospects.
My View would be Social Media is one of the Powerful and Easiest Way as well source leading to Popularity.
Through these Social Networking & Bookmarking Sites we can not gain as much as Search Traffic, but averagely good.
Social Media is a great tool for a lot of brands, and for most brands it feels like a more natural transition from their previous marketing experiences. The results are easily traced by visual proof, they can see interaction with consumers. Its almost like Direct mail they can almost hold it in their hands...feeling good showing friends and family.
Search is less glamorous and not quite as tangible feeling. Search will always be relevant because it is a direct response to an inquiry. People will always need answers to questions.
I think social media is also so hot because of the explosion of where people are being interactive. The smart phones have amplified the opportunity for success via social media, and companies are trying frantically to keep up.
search (SEO) and social media both have benefits and both should be used according to need and situation.
They should not be compared as depending on the situation one will dominate over other.
ps Thank goodness Mr Beckham has shown some credibility and moved to Milan - sorry for the off topic but i'm thinking football now :)
Social Media advocates make a big deal about Tweets happening in 'Real Time', so that if you want the most immediate information about an event happening Right Now, you would be better off search Twitter for witness threads than going on Google.
Relevancy is largely driven by time.
I'm not saying I agree, just that that's what the advantage claim is.
Great post Rand.
I believe that they are both seperate beasts.
I believe that nothing beats getting the basics right - such as usability, accessibility you know the basics of SEO.
However, Social Media can work for some industries very well, for instance the indie music scene has shown this. However, it probably wouldn't work for a high street accountant or divorce lawyer?
As a marketeer i think you need to evaluate the target market first and see if social media will be relevant.
SEO/SEM is like a great back two and commanding midfielder and social media rather more like Mr Beckham.
Hi,
I think that SEO will help you get much more benefits then Social Networks. I have for example a website that I consider to be an experiment : the only thing I'm doing for it is to create optimized content. That's it : no promoting, no marketing. Just content. The result is the traffic increases.
On the other hand social networks help me a lot. I'm from Romania and I have a .ro domain (even if I'll get a .com domain and hosted in Romania will be the same result) on which I blog in English moslty for US, Canada (these are the countryes that send me the highest traffic). The traffic I receive is only via social networks because my website is hosted in Romania - there are few chances to get good rankings with my domain.
So, in the end I consider that both SEO and SM have their benefits but I agree that SEO is much powerfull. Knowing what to write, what keywords to target, how to target it gives you some advantages.
Thank you,
TomaBonciu on Twitter
I thought I'd leave an example of a particular brand, I feel has done really in the social media space.
Social Media Strategy
Makes users want to share material, often because the material makes you engage, this one made me crack up:
https://tinyurl.com/bwubfl
Stats :
Not bad statistics...I have to agree with most here, it takes a lot of thought and time to properly plan and execute a social media campaign and if you’re entering for the sakes of it, prepare to be buried...
Shahid...
how many conversions do you estimate came from that conversion?
Email newletters... i know how many opened, deleted, forwarded, replied and i can associate and direct leads/purchases with that particular email up to 2 years after the email was sent...
Search... analytics picks up from search term to contact form to thank you page (B2B) or purchase (b2C). they can also show how many came from PPC, how many from organic SEO, what term, what bounce rate.... etc..
also says how many came from, facebook, myspace, digg, etc..
One thing I deal with is organizations that don't see the value full value in spending time/money on internet marketing and cling to tired and true (and weakening) marketing method suddenly falling in love with the idea of social media.
However, once you educate the client that you don't just "SEO it" or "do social media on it" in 2 hours time, they tend to become less enthusiastic.
Can social media be effective? Sure! But are there people in-house that have any true understanding of SMO? Or if not, are they really willing to spend the $$ to outsource it?
Executives still don't know the difference between using social media personally and using social media for marketing. For these companies, the time/money they are willing to invest in any internet marketing can probably be better spent on SEO.
In my mind the biggest difference is the time it takes to achieve uptick in your marketing effort. I can go out and do a few blog posts, twitter 1/2 of the day, do some facebook promoting, etc and I can show that my Social Media Marketing moved the chains in my Analytics. But, I have to do this day after day or the traffic dies down.
On the same site I can hit the SEO side doing on page and then link building and not see much for a month. once I get my rankings I can continue to generate the traffic without all the work.
The above is obviously very general terms and not always accurate, but that's why I think people get excited about Social Media Marketing. It's a "now" world. I can Twitter now and see visitors from my twittering. I tend to forget the 18 months I SEO's the site that make up 85% of my visitors.
In conclusion. I think both channels matter. In today's day and age you need to find people where they are. Some people go to google, some search Technorati and other now Twitter for their info. Build out your Online Marketing plan to hit all areas, integrate as much as possible and you'll be ahead of 95% of your competitors.
A lot of controversy on this topic. Personally I tend to agree with most of the statements - yes, a company should get the fundamentals right and go after a new channel only when there is a good expectation that it will perform.
But I think these observations should be qualified a little: social media will be a much more efficient channel for small businesses, especially for ones with unique products or business models (not to mention freebies they can offer online) - but it will be a very different thing for a large, corporate business.
I think this is what causes such different opinions.
I'd be interested in learning more why you think social media is stronger for smaller business? Generally speaking, by definition smaller businesses depend on longer tail activity. That means search. Weather I have a unique product or service or own a dry cleaner on the corner....I need to get the broadest reach possible.
Chris BaggottCEOCompendium Blogwarewww.compendiumblogware.com
It's like baking a cake. The ideal cake is made using the perfect mix of ingredients that suits your individual preference.
You'll always need some basic ingredients (search) and a good oven, but some ingredients van be added/left out/mixed up to your liking. If you only make your cake with eggs (social media), you'll end up with an omelet. And an omelet is nothing like a cake, no sir.
When sending emailings to a large number of recipients, no reply is your friend. Even if you think it's not very 'friendly'. Next time just include a link to a contact form. Or your Twitter account. ;-)
I like to think of social media traffic and buzz coming in waves while search traffic is often a bit more steady. For this reason I often recommend to clients that social media is a great way to create a surge in awareness and let people know about news or promotions.
However, let us not forget that social media can very powerfully impact a search engine optimization campaign. By creating awareness of content or interesting material that can be found on a client website through social media channels, the possibility of gaining a few links increases. These social media waves, or bubbles, or whatever, can be just what some companies need to prove their authority in an industry or recieve recognition from a blogging community. I would say the two can actually be extremely intertwined.
And for what it is worth, I concur on the OMS recommendation Rand made. I went to an OMS conference last year and felt that it was one of the better conference experiences I have had. Not over populated, and really great panels. OMS gets two thumbs up from me too! good job guys!
great post, you have not mention any thing about WOM, which was there even before these social media website and was always more powerful than the normal way of marketing...
Problem is with social media or buzz, is it can fade, like a newspaper ad, seen by a few hundred thousand for 30 secs then bOOmf gone. Search optimisation lasts.
Social media can build a referall network that is always right in front of your potential client
Social media can build a referall network that is always right in front of your potential client
I have to disagree with some of your comments.
First, Search isn't a very good way to respond to any consumer need. In fact, searching for answers is quite frustrating for consumers. In fact, SM is far better at answering customer issues/needs in a scalable fashion. Specifically Twitter.
If I (and I know I'm not alone) have an issue with a brand, I tweet it out there. Usually within the hour someone from the brand reaches back and offers to help. Now that is scaleable customer response. You can't do that with SEO because a) there is no response mechanism and b) once you ID an issue, upload and optimize content on your site, you're still many days away from Googgle, etc indexing it.
Agree that companies are jumping on SM just because it is hot. But seriously, how is that different from early 90's web craze and late 90's/early 2000 SEO craze. It is just what companies looking for answers and market share do.
I guess the best way to put it is that this post was very shallow in analysis and highly biased in delivery, which for me = no value.
On the other hand - the conversation in the thread (ironically - the Social aspect of this post), had a great deal more benefit.
Amen, Rand!
Even though (as many have pointed out) search and social are different, and they should ideally both be part of your marketing strategy,
search is essential for most businesses-- social media is not.
Keeping your eye on the ball is important. Great post!
I’m glad I have stayed in the shadows learning real things rather then getting caught in marketing drama, arguing over useless idiosyncrasies . it’s like brain candy, and I would rather not rot my brain. don’t let the good content here there is so much of get caught in between "SEO SEM", mysticism, marketing smoke and a mirrors, and "socializing" behind a computer screen, while your back and quantitative brain slowly deteriorates. Use the machine to suit your ends don't become a slave to it.