Who owns social media?…Who cares?
August 14th, 2009 by Lloyd Gofton
I’m going to revisit an ongoing and, at least in my opinion, slightly tedious argument. The discussion around who should own/lead/manage social media campaigns and social media in general.
What or who has rattled my cage? Well no one specifically, I’ve been discussing the issue with a few different people this week, and also came across an article in PR Week (US Version) via David Teicher’s blog: Aerocles, which popped up in my feeds. Thanks David, just to confirm my points are not related to David’s post, but the PR Week article that I found via his post.
So, onto my point. Well, the PR Week (US) article is innocent enough, it’s based on some research by 2009 Digital Readiness Report from iPressroom, Korn/Ferry International, and PRSA in the US that surveyed 278 PR, marketing, and HR professionals over six weeks. To quote the article overview:‘The study found that PR generally leads several aspects of digital communications, including blogging, where PR leads at 49% of organizations, compared to 22% for marketing. PR also leads microblogging (52% to marketing’s 22%), and social networking (48% to 27%). Marketing usually leads e-mail marketing and SEO aspects of digital communications.’
Seems relevant, and unsurprisingly a PR magazine is reporting on research that puts PR at the head of the social media table, something you might think I would be happy about as a PR professional, at least originally. I have no real issue with the article, but if I was to read this in a search specific or advertising title, with a slant towards their industry, I would merrily rant away in disagreement. So why not when it positions PR at the head of the table?
My main problem with this type of article, based on research though it maybe, is it’s missing the point. Trying to position PR as the lead in social media, or owning social media is simply not relevant. Sure, PRs have some very relevant skills that must be part of a social media campaign to be a success, and David overviews some of these in his post, but are we really that arrogant to think these skills can’t be passed on or learnt by marketing communications/digital marketing professionals with other specialisms?
My argument, which I seem to go back to every two or so months judging by my posts here and here, is that no one sector can own social media, and trying to do so really is a pointless exercise. The smart people/agencies/brands are learning a blend of skills - PR, content development, search, creative and a whole host of digital marketing skills - that allow them to be more useful and relevant in a social media environment.
I was having this discussion with the head of a well known digital marketing agency just yesterday, and at that agency they are taking a more inclusive approach to their social media than just thinking their original specialism can ‘own’ the area and everybody else is wrong. In my opinion that’s a big reason why they have been so successful to date.
So, research or no research, good arguments or no good arguments, can PR lead social media? Nope, not alone, but no one will. If anyone is going to ‘own’ social media, and the irony of that statement is not lost on me, it’s individuals and agencies that will grow out of the melting pot to become multi-skilled and simply think social.
In the future we will see a continual blurring of sectors - PR, search, advertising - in fact we already are. The end result will be socially and digitally aware communicators, and before you ask, I’m not going to label this new breed, as it’s too soon.
Even then, ownership is irrelevant, because the evolution will continue and new skills will be required, but isn’t that the fun part?
Tags: PR, Social media, social media ownership
