I want to have a discussion with you on how an organization should create a social media strategy. Before we have that discussion and conversation, I want to pose to you a basic query. “WHY”? Why should an organization make a social media marketing commitment? We live in an absolutely breathtaking time, aren’t we? Truthfully, company now functions a the “speed of thought” to quote Costs Gates. When Mr. Gates made this comment, social media was not a significant issue in business. In contemporary business, the quote has even greater importance for a marketer. Social media is a GAME CHANGER. Social media allows an organization to market in “real time”. This allows companies to create strong brands. Social Media enables organizations to have a personal “conversation” along with consumers. When this “conversation” is made, a strong brand is created.
Social media would be the platforms like Facebook and Twitter that allow marketers and customers to have instant conversations with their clients. This allows an environment in which “disruptive” marketplaces can be created and for these markets to thrive. Two recent events prove this. The two events are the election of President Obama and the passing of President Mubarak. These events happened because people had a common platform to go to—-a “community” meeting place to meet, to create the changes that they wanted. People had a place to have “a conversation”. President Obama began a political career with no money and no name recognition. These are critical elements which are needed to run successfully for the American Presidency.
If you loved this article and you would like to get additional info about klever kindly take a look at the webpage.
The existence of social media changed the particular political paradigm and allowed Us president Obama to compete. One of Us president Obama’s closest advisers was Captain christopher Atkins, who was one of the original originators of Facebook. With his help, Barack was able to create a branding strategy that will won an election that would happen to be impossible in “old media” instances.
President Obama and Hilary Clinton are examples of “old Media” plus “New Media”. In contrast to Barack, Hilary Clinton was well known, had a large amount of original cash, came from a large, important state, had a large political network. She possessed a strong conventional political brand. In addition , between herself and her husband, it is a well established proven fact that the Clintons are the best pure political figures in modern American political background.
Barack’s great asset is that he, with Mr. Atkins’ help grasped social media. The Obama campaign was a “disruptive technology”. The Clinton marketing campaign did not understand this new medium— social media. Her manager, Mark Penn, was an expert in conventional media strategy, but the Clinton campaign did not understand the changes that have taken place in common platforms, that allow a great many people to satisfy in one place, at one time, and have a “conversation” with “friends”. These adjustments allowed the Obama campaign to overcome seeming disadvantages, to turn their particular weakness into strengths. Barack’s power in social media allowed Obama to hold Iowa, a state that has few African-american Americans—a state that would have been a strong Clinton state in years past.
Marketing is about making correct decisions and making proper “bets”. To make these decisions that bets, a marketer has to have correct information that is in “real time”. Through Facebook, Barack had this particular asset. He knew what voters were thinking, and at what period they were thinking it. Facebook permitted Barack to understand sudden changes within perception in voter attitude, and to deal with those sudden changes, that will happen in any campaign. When problems arose, such as the Jeremiah Wright concern, Barack was able to contain the fallout. In times past, a Jeremiah Wright episode would have been enough to sink nearly all candidates. Let us not forget that a concession speech, sunk the candidacy associated with Howard Dean, in 2004. Using a platform like Facebook, Barack was able to turn bad events into great opportunities. In the Wright issue, Barack knew that he had a significant problem. He knew what was on someones minds. Even his harshest experts say that his speech on competition in Philadelphia in March associated with 2008, was a game changer in his candidacy. Through Facebook, Barack knew what had to be said and he stated it in a way that all Americans, monochrome, could understand. “Conversations” on Fb allowed Barack to know how to speak with people—even his greatest detractors.
When it comes to President Mubarak, for many years there was a strong opposition to him in Egypt. The opposition couldn’t dethrone because Mubarak had great advantages in cash. He also had the backing of the Egyptian Army, the most important force in Egyptian society. In the present Fb environment, these changes were conquer. Basically, one kid was busted and got beaten by the police. He got mad, went on Facebook, and created a rally. The many competitors groups in Egypt now had a common place to meet. The army noticed that Facebook had created a real paradigm shift in Egypt, and they withdrew their support for Mubarak, and a change was made in short order. AMAZING!!!!
Using these two examples, in can be seen that selling products within a market place should be easy. It would seem this way, but an organization must still have a strategy for social media to work. The purpose of this informative article is to explain the great paradigm differences that Facebook and other social platforms have created. Facebook has created unusual scale. To seal the deal regarding the “why” question, I would like to quote some statistics on how much scale the social media platforms have given to a modern marketer.
Time magazine tells us from its 12/20/10 issue that 98, 604 Friendships are approved on Facebook each day. Among Facebook friendships, 55, 304 Links are provided EACH MINUTE. Facebook has integrated with 2 million websites, worldwide. Every day, 10, 000 new websites combine with Facebook each day. The most deep statistic is that if Facebook were a country, it would be the THIRD BIGGEST NATION IN THE WORLD. Facebook accounts for one in 4 faceviews each day. These statistics account ONLY for Facebook. There are plenty of, many other social platforms now working in the world, that are integrated with Facebook. The scale that Facebook creates is indescribable for a marketer. Now, virtually, the ENTIRE WORLD is located in one place—or least in a place that an online marketer can reach, all at one time. It is almost as if a marketer rented a hall, invented the entire world, and then played a commercial, and then sat lower individually with each of these people, together a conversation with each of them.
This scale creates “A PERFECT STORM”, for a marketer. Each individual that goes on Facebook or Google is monitored by Facebook and Google as they individuals traverse their social media sights. There are privacy concerns that a marketer will have to address. The scale of social media sights has allowed individual customers to be targeted and segmented because never before. By working with the marketing departments of Facebook and Search engines, a consumer can be targeted with the ideal message and product at just the right time. A marketer doesn’t have in order to waste their time on a consumer who is not really interested in their product.