GM's Bankruptcy And Flawed White House Thinking

It's the typical story "in these uncertain times." You have a big issue that is tearing up the wires and you look for an angle that is inspiring.

Enter the New York Times with "The 31-Year-Old in Charge of Dismantling G.M." Here's the young, dynamic guy, fresh from the grad school ranks, (he hasn't even graduated yet) who's making a difference in the biggest bankruptcy in history. Mr. Brian Deese:HarvardYale man. He is another symbol of youth and vitality that typifies the Obama White House. He's the perfect face to personify the new direction for both GM and our country.

Only one troubling thing for your intrepid marketing podcast host and keeper of all things BeanCast: I can't believe anyone could read this article and not think with incredulity, "This whole bankruptcy was pushed through because an inexperience grad student, with no political experience, thought it would be a good idea?!?"

It Just Sounds Like Arrogance

Now I don't doubt that he's a smart and savvy guy who grasps situations unusually well. But I'm troubled by this quote from the article: "Every time Mr. Deese ran the numbers on G.M. and 

Chrysler

, he came back with the now-obvious conclusion that neither was a viable business, and that their plans to revive themselves did not address the erosion of their revenues."

This is simply a chicken or the egg argument! Part of GM's problem, in particular, was lack of consumer confidence. And when a popular administration waffles in their own confidence and starts pushing for bankruptcy, it essentially ties the hands of the company in question. While there's no doubt that there were no assurances that the GM plan would work, to say it was not "a viable business option," strays a little too close to arrogance for my tastes.

What would have happened if we hadn't made such a big fuss about bailout, and did for the auto makers what we did for the banks? The banks seem to be recovering more quickly aren't they? Sure, we grumbled about the money and insolence, but it worked. Who can say now what would have happened if we hadn't drug out Detroit's failings for so many months, trashing their reputation in the process? All I know is Rick Wagoner (the now deposed GM chief) knew a lot more about cars than Mr. Deese does.

Destroying Confidence

I'm fairly familiar with the internal situation at GM through some contacts I have. And I can tell you that the entire company, though scared, believed they could make it. They believed in the leadership of Rick Wagoner and they believed in their plan. But both were stripped away, along with their own confidence by this government led bankruptcy. And now to find out it was largely the result of one inexperienced man's urging is just plain insulting.

Again, no offense to Mr. Deese. I would probably like him very much. I even think that now he has inspired two bankruptcies to come into play, both will turn out well. (We have no choice but for them to turn out well.) I just question whether both were as necessary as he believed. And I definitely think that this is a story that the White House would have done better to leave untold.

The Social Media Echo Chamber

Something is bothering me.

Every week as I cull through marketing stories for The BeanCast, I'm struck by the sheer volume of social media coverage. This, in itself, is troubling because of balance for my show. I'm trying to do a marketing podcast that offers discussion spanning the industry. Yet instead, I find we're always doing at least one story and often several stories touching on social strategies, Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, blogging, etc.

But here are some interesting facts that have just occurred to me: I find a heavy representation of journalists and PR professionals on Twitter and Facebook. I also find them all writing and promoting their own blogs in addition to their primary reporting sites. And I find many of them (as well as the people interacting with them) openly discussing the issue of how social media creates an echo chamber -- and echo chamber that repeatedly blows stories and controversies out of proportion to their relevance.

So, given these facts, isn't it reasonable to wonder if social media strategy as a whole is not itself a product of the echo chamber?

Important? Yes. That Important? Maybe.

Before I proceed much further, understand that I am not questioning whether social marketing offers value to advertisers. There is no doubt in my mind that it does. In essence, most social strategies are just ideas that advance what we have always advocated in marketing -- get personal and targeted with each customer's needs.

But is it really as important as some suggest? Is it even really its own discipline, rather than an extension of PR and customer service? And is it worth so much talk?

Let's Discuss

I'm going to reserve my judgment for the moment. But in light of the 

recent study questioning the effectiveness of social marketing

 and yet 

more controversies over the tactics

 being employed in the name of social, this will definitely be a topic of discussion on this week's show.

So what do you think? Are we blowing all of this social stuff out of proportion? Or is the topic worth all the hype and coverage? I'd love to hear from you as we anticipate discussing it with Steve Hall, Brian Morrissey and John Wall this week on the show.

What Does Direct Marketing Mean Today

The whole reason for me going to New York recently was not, contrary to the pictures, to party with listeners of The BeanCast and talk about how cool it is to run a marketing podcast. No! It was to judge the best of direct marketing in the ECHO Awards competition.

I love the ECHO Awards because it's the only award that gives equal weight to strategy, creative and results. But more and more each year the question is raised, "What exactlyis direct marketing today?"

This year we tried to force the issue and broaden the definition, resulting in much spirited debate on the subject. The ECHO Academy group on Linked In is the repository of one such debate. My inbox is another. And while I encourage you to participate in this conversation, I also want to take the opportunity to expand on my own conclusions here.

Direct Is Not Just About ROI

Direct marketing purists will often ask about return on investment. It's how the industry was built. We spend money on marketing and we can point to exactly how much money we have made as a result. And yet, in many ways this ignores the truth.

Direct marketing has also always had a vibrant lead generation component. And often the strategy for a campaign is not to sell, but to fill the pipeline for future sales. We can still expand out and directly correlate a contact with a sale, but in terms of marketing we have counted this type of response as a win for quite a while.

So this year we pushed forward the notion that results are justifiable for our award if they are concrete, measurable and fulfill the terms of the strategy.

Separating Tactics From Strategy

Obviously this sparked some controversy. Because when you open things up and specify results so openly, it justifies quite a few tactics that have been largely considered the territories of branding and PR. It also says that a campaign that generated "3 million clicks on a video" is direct marketing, another debatable point.

But my stance remains that they are justified for one reason -- integration.

Very few direct campaigns today exist in a vacuum. They are more likely to be found as part of a larger effort that attempts to build brand and word of mouth right along side response. And arguing about whether tactics are "direct" is silly. If the communication is leading to a response that is concrete and measurable, it is achieving the principles of direct marketing. Further, it is advancing the purpose of direct marketing as a whole, by incorporating these principles into every marketing touch.

It's All About Relevance

It's my belief that we need to stop thinking about direct marketing as a tactic and start promoting it as a philosophy. No matter where we are in the process of building a brand, we need to be creating a path to the sale. And the only way this will happen is if we encourage and reward those who are attempting to incorporate these ideals into their work.

Richard Rosen says it best with his Velocity Scale. Brand and Direct need to be in a constant balance act, each supporting and enhancing the other. Because like I've said many times on this blog, pure promotions get you immediate sales, but not recall; and pure branding gets you recall, but not sales.

Having this symbiotic mindset is also important because our relevance hangs in the balance. Direct gets a bad rap not just because it's not "cool work," but because it's stuck in the formulaic world of tactics. And as the tactics radically change because of digital, search and social media, we risk being marginalized further by not recognizing how direct principles can fit into the mix.

So these are my opinions in a nutshell. I'd love to hear your thoughts, so please feel free to comment here or over on the Linked In thread.

Measurement Still Plagues Social

I came up from my promotional buzz-tour for Fast Takes and realized, "Hey! I have to keep the stories for The BeanCast fresh if I want any content for a 'best of' marketing podcast!" And it didn't take me long to find a doozie of a story.

There's a lot of buzz going on around a study from Knowledge Networks about whether "social media is failing as a marketing medium." This article was particularly good at summing it up for me.

But here's the thing: We can debate whether the study legitimately looked at "social marketing" or just at ads on social networks. We can also debate whether the survey numbers reflect the real-world results people are achieving. But I think this study highlights the deeper problems in the social space, which are that we can't agree as to what social marketing even is and we have no definitive means of measuring success.

Ideas Without Agreement

Now admittedly, there are lots of proposal floating around on both of these issues. It's not like social marketing and social measurement are completely undefined. Some people are really on to some interesting ideas that I believe are working quite well. (Having just listened again to Scott Monty and Christopher Barger on measuring social success in Fast Takes #2, I'd say they are great examples of how to get it right.)

But at the same time I was in a MySpace presentation recently that showcased the "targeted ad" possibilities on their network and called it "social marketing." There are thousands of "gurus" out there who still say they can prove the ROI of the medium. And most of the measurement companies are still attempting to gauge success in a site-specific way, rather than trying to understand total customer impact across all touch points.

Direct Response is Still Direct Response

Here's a point that has to be made: Just because you wrap up a direct marketing effort and put it on a social site, it doesn't make it any less of a direct marketing effort. Can we at least agree on this? A campaign based on clicks-through is not a social campaign, it is direct response.

This is not to say direct response is a bad thing. I believe in it. I think it works. But calling it social does two things that are detrimental to understanding the effectiveness of social marketing: First, it says that social has to drive sales in order to have value; and second, it limits measurement to this single touch point (and single site) in what should be a multi-touch program of comprehensive engagement.

"Social Campaign" Does Not Just Mean "Facebook Page"

Which brings me to my next point: We need to stop calling Facebook pages "social marketing campaigns." A Facebook page or a twitter account or even a forum user identity are just tools. Using these tools to put out content is simply the implementation of a tactic or the launching of a promotion.

A true social strategy is something bigger. It spans all the customer touch points, creating opportunities for public and visible interactions with our customers -- interactions that touch individuals, but change mass impressions. And often it means going to where the customers are, rather than just drawing them into your site.

With this kind of understanding of social, you can see why measurement is all over the place. You need tools that cast the net wide enough to hear everything that's out there, from magazine to TV to online social networks. And it involves various tactical disciplines from PR to sales to customer service to branding. Not easy!

What's Old is Now New Again

And that leaves me with my last point: We've spent so much time "bucketfying" advertising into tactical disciplines -- with clear measurement and managed risk -- we've lost focus on what the customer wants. Jonathan Sackett, Chief Digital Officer at The Martin Agency, summed it up best in a recent talk he gave during 

ECHO Award judging when he asked, "Aren't we just talking to ourselves?"

As much as we try to get customer insights and speak to the hearts and minds of our audience, we've instead made marketing into a spectator sport. We create messages that please our internal audience and satisfy our legal department, then turn it loose for an up/down vote by the public. Even when it does speak to the heart, it's still somehow removed from the "person."

But what good social marketing should be doing is tearing down this sanitized wall. It should be getting back to the roots of marketing where the identity and brand where integrally tied to the individual experience each customer had in interacting with employees. That's scary for most of us. And it becomes even scarier the larger a company gets, because "dumbing down" marketing into simple and codified rules is our safety net for controlling the uncontrollable forces of customer opinion.

We Are No Longer The Only Voice

Trouble is that now our customers and critics have been empowered with the means to be heard every bit as clearly as us. So while in the past we could distill a message for the masses and be the only voice speaking, now individuals and groups have the communications tools and the growing ability to change, enhance or destroy our brand identity. Need I remind you of Amazon Fail or the Domino's video?

Which brings me back to the reason for writing all this: We can say that "social marketing is not in the plan" or criticize it as "not working" or simply ignore it if we so choose, but that doesn't make the problems it is addressing go away.

Our customers want to know we are listening. That doesn't mean they want to necessarily interact with us. It doesn't mean that they want a special offer or desire to join our little "social club" on Facebook. It means they want to see genuine examples of who we are, what we represent and how these values are put into action by everyday employees.

None of which can be measured! Except maybe in a sudden surge of advocacy and sales.

So let's not throw the baby out just yet. Let's at least try to understand what social means before we lead with how it's "not working." Certainly stay critical and question, but at least realize there is a growing need for these tools. And at least make the effort to find smarter ways to bring a social perspective into our marketing plans and gauge it effectiveness over the long-haul.

Tradeshow Preparedness

It's getting to be that season again. Summer and Fall see an endless paraded of industry events and if you're like most marketers I've met, they are the bane of your existence.

Tradeshows can be fun of course. Vegas has it's...good points. (Remember, I know...I did my marketing podcast, The BeanCast from Vegas this past year.) Trouble is, the fun parts usually have nothing to do with why we're there. And the things that give us justification for our expense reports are grueling at best.

But I would like to suggest that the underlying dread most of us feel has less to do with the work involved as it does with our sense of accomplishment.

Most of us go to these events knowing that people are just showing up for our free stuffed animals and to enter our Wii drawing. We know in our hearts that most of our time there will be unproductive and wasted effort. And we are absolutely sure that we will walk away without a single lead.

But here's the rub. These shows must be working for someone. They keep happening. There must be some value somewhere. And before you say, "Sure, for the guys with the football field space and a dozen LCD panels," that represents less than half the space at most of these events. What about the rest of these companies? Are they all simply being duped?

Two Groups

What I've noticed over time is that the organizations who get the most from tradeshows fall into two basic groups. Group one is the company that has the hottest thing(s) since sliced bread and whether they are in a big or small space, everybody is stopping by to see them. Group two can include some of group one, but is at its heart an organization that has laid out clear expectations, objectives and strategies and follows through with focus.

I've worked with a lot of companies over the years helping them get the most from tradeshows. And while this is not a comprehensive plan for success, these are just a few of the pointers I usually give to help ensure my clients are embracing a "group two" approach.

Don't Neglect Nor Underestimate Branding Value

The most common mistake among tradeshow marketers is to try and tell their story in their booth graphics. Instead, I always encourage clients to be simple and memorable.

Let's face it, your brochure is going in the trash and your pitch will blur together with a thousand other impressions in their mind. But if your brand presentation is unique and memorable, you'll at the very least have built a starting point for future communications. Your brand means legitimacy and relevancy when you next communicate with them. It may not always lead to a sale, but neither does a busy and forgettable booth. Don't underestimate the value of your brand when designing the booth, materials and pre/post show communications.

Intrigue More Than Sell

It's only human to try and compress the sale into those few minutes within the booth. We tend to instantly size up the lead, qualify/disqualify them and move on.

However, just like in any other B2B marketing program, the objective has to clearly be set on lead generation. If we get the sale, all the better. But that cannot be why we are there, because it short-circuits more potential relationships than generates new sales.

That's why I'm a huge advocate of NEVER telling your whole story. At no point in pre-show communications or during the event should you give them all the facts unless they a ready to sign on the dotted line. Tradeshows are about sizzle. It's about standing out. And just like you are sizing up a prospects potential, they are looking for any reason to disqualify you from consideration.

DON'T GIVE IT TO THEM!

Get them so excited they'll be eager for that callback. Have that rap ready that leads them to eagerly await that demo or info packet. And even then, keep them wanting more.

The thing we forget is that people rarely sign on for half-million dollar contracts based on a brochure alone. So don't cheat your sales force from doing what they can do better than any materials you can put in their hands. Let the marketing intrigue and let sales sell.

Keep Them Moving Deeper

Even in a small booth, there needs to be a strategy for physically moving them deeper into the experience. And one of the most underplayed cards is the pass-off.

The best booths have front line "attractors." Whether it's the guy with Wiimote, the theater presenter or the girl in the bikini, they are there to get people to stop. (And no, I do not recommend bikinis unless you are selling them. But that's a whole 'nother blog post.) This front line is all about teasing with fun and facts. It is the first step in qualifying.

Once targets are identified, they are passed off to the "sizzlers." This group is standing inside the booth or sitted comfortably. These are the people doing impressive hands-on demos or talking success numbers.

If after this there is even deeper interest, the prospect is passed off to the "connectors." This is where the prospect is taken to the back room or off the floor for deeper discussion about their needs. And that is key. This is not about closing, but about identifying what the customer's specific needs are with the promise that you will be getting back in touch with a specific plan to meet those needs at no charge or obligation. The essentially eliminates that cold follow-up call and makes it a value-add contact.

It's Simple, But Not Easy

There's a saying that I use: 

Marketing is simple. It's just not easy.

The things I am suggesting here (and the many more points that I don't have room to discuss) are really very simple premises. People like drama. They like being treated personally. They like knowing solutions fit. And while creating this "cadence of communication," as I call it, is a lot of hard work, it can still make all the difference for your next show.

What Makes A Good Salesperson?

I'm still dwelling on this -- far beyond what is probably good for any marketing podcast host to be doing. But it just occurred to me that what makes a good salesperson is exactly what makes the rest of us hate them so much!

Think about these individuals for a moment. The best of the best in sales are driven to succeed. They are constantly on the move. They couldn't care less about your branding campaign as long as it moves product. They are always going to the best restaurants and laughing it up, while you work late to get their deliverables to them. It's all about doing anything for the customer. It's about engagement far beyond the needs of the sale at hand

Got the picture? Now the next question: Haven't I just described PR and social media efforts as well? How about Customer Relationship Management efforts? Isn't a bit of that in there too?

Relationship Building Is What We Have In Common

I find it interesting to contemplate the dynamics of change in our industry. We all talk a good game about being "relationship focused" or "getting social" and being "one-to-one" in what we do, but underneath it all remains this distaste for what it means.

I've maintained for years that marketing can learn a lot from sales. (Certainly the converse is true as well, but we already knew that.) The most effective sales efforts have always been about balancing relationships with results. They've always been about nurturing the personal connections and creating advocacy. And while there's no denying that sales invariably leans toward the immediate value of the relationship at the expense of the long-term value of the corporate brand, there's still the core truth that selling is what it's all about.

Because of this, it's absolutely essential to both create a brand that offers a synergistic flow from contact to sale, and foster understanding of how the process works within the organization.

The Underlying Truth

The real reason organizations are enamored with the social model now and have wrestled with CRM for nearly two decades, is because they both provide the means to more effectively connect the marketing and the sales processes. If done right, they offer a chance for the lines to be blurred further and for ROI to increase as a whole. And yet it can't happen unless the two camps work together.

So homework for today: Why not apply the principles of CRM and social media within your organization. (That's a fancy way of saying, do a little internal selling, mind you.) Instead of just jumping in to some new marketing mandate (Let's all Twitter!), work toward keeping a database of your sales people's needs and family members and favorite sports teams first. Send them birthday wishes via Facebook. Friend them on the network of their choice. Invite them to debate you in a relevant online forum. Position this as a means of serving them better. And prove through your actions how it all works.

Everything Starts With Trust — Even Internally

Build trust first and then show them how branded interactions can be just as powerful and have longer-lasting value than just making the connections as an individual. Make them comfortable first and you'll find you won't just have buy-in, you'll have advocacy.

What makes a good salesperson may still get under your skin sometimes. But remember, those we resent the most usually contain those aspect that we resent most within ourselves. It's time to get over it, stop pushing idea and start taking action.

An Unusually Effective Sponsorship

If you've listened to The BeanCast for any length of time, you know I am an unabashed gamer first, marketing podcaster second. I love most everything about video games. I even love the industry and news surrounding gaming as much as the games themselves.

Yet as an enthusiast, I tend to be pretty jaded about promotional stuff. I mean I love it, as any good marketing professional would. I also think if done well these effort often add to the total experience. But largely I remain emotionally detached. Which is why my response to a recent Sprint promotion caught be completely off guard.

The Freemium Strikes Again

Beginning this week, Sprint became a sponsor in the PlayStation Network online store. Basically they have their own tile on the menu system accessed through the PlayStation 3 gaming console and it drills down to some branded content.

But Sprint did something surprising here. Instead of just dropping in some videos and maybe shoveling out some lame-assed advergame (you would have expected maybe a stripped down NASCAR title or something considering their sponsorship there), they offered me a grade-A title for free.

What The Customer Sees

Now let me take you through this for a moment. This title has nothing to do with Sprint. There are no synergies or tie-ins to make this offer make sense. There is no name capture nor am I signing up to be spammed. On the surface, there is no way that I as a marketer would have ever made this recommendation as a smart move.

And yet as a gamer, here's what I saw: One of the most popular titles in the store that I had actually considered purchasing already had just been bought and paid for by this brand. They gave it to me with no strings attached. Further, they went to the effort to come into my world seamlessly, rather than asking me to go to them or forcing some awkward message into my space. And I felt good about them. I felt really good about them. In fact, this carrier was raised into my consideration set for possibly the first time ever.

Click To Brand

Recently I've been exploring an interesting dynamic in marketing. It seems like everyone is enamored with measurement these days. And let me tell you, that's music to my direct-marketing-trained ears. But I've also begun to realize that just because you can get hard and fast ROI measurement out of tactic, doesn't always make it the best play for you and your brand.

Why is it we can accept the value of a TV campaign as an exercise in branding and yet sneer if that's the only value we derive from a point and click online campaign? And I've been one of the worst offenders on that front. I've always striven to push for a ROI-driven call-to-action.

Yet there is no denying that for a lot less money than they spend on a single TV ad, Sprint has raised their brand perception in my mind more than any of their TV campaigns in the last five years. Why? Because they've shown that they understand my world and what I value. They've said, "We want to participate in this space and since we all like good games, here's one of the best. Have fun!" That overlays a persona on their brand that I never imagined would be there. And if they had tried to be heavy-handed in any way and been even a touch more response-driven, they would have ruined the brand experience.

Finding this balance is key. And my larger point is that we need to stop relegating the response vs. brand question to a purely tactical answer. The question, it's answers and the implications of what we do are simply too large to be contained in any single media.

As an aside, it's funny that in the middle of me writing all this, Richard Rosen should call me. He's the author of the new bookConvergence Marketing, which speaks heavily on this idea that the response/brand question flows both ways. His premise is essentially that branding happens in direct and direct can happen in brand. The media is not the important thing. The essential ingredient is being relevant and engaging with the customer in ways that make sense to the customer — regardless of if it makes sense to you. A timely reminder for you and for me.

Despising Ourselves

Have you ever noticed how many people in advertising actually despise what they do?

I don't mean out-right, "I hate my job," stuff. It's more of this poorly cloaked disdain of the nuts and bolts of marketing.

As part of my efforts to keep the content here on The BeanCast site fresh and the discussions on the marketing podcast interesting, I go through a lot of online resources. And repeatedly I see this generally distasteful tone among agency people when the subject of actually selling stuff comes up.

They'll talk until they're blue in the face about brand value. Or they'll tell you about how perception is up. They may even mention how they'll put together the right media mix and deliver a strategy that is bound to increase profitability. But when the subject of asking for the sale comes up, you can almost see the sneer tugging at their lips and the bile dripping from their words. Then there's usually a joke about "direct marketing" or those troublesome "sales people" and we're back to the high-art of advertising.

Haven't We Learned Anything?

I have to say that I'm genuinely shocked people can still be working in our industry today and have no appreciation for the art of selling. Haven't we learned anything from Amazon approach? Do we not see what's happening when brands become personally integrated in sales and customer service like at Zappos?

I used to just write-off the attitude as the age-old debate about tactics, where the cool, expensive, photo-shoot-needs-to-be-in-Tanzania folks, snobbishly ignored those creating mailers with stock photos. But now I really believe it's a deep-seated hatred for what they do for a living.

Choosing Art At The Expense of ROI

I guess this makes sense. How many art directors do you know that got into advertising because they wanted to move product? Most that I've met chose it because it's one of the last open outlets for making money in art. Same with writers. We'd all like to write that book or screenplay, but this advertising gig puts food on the table.

I admit it. I sneered at advertising at the start. Then accepted it as a means to an end. But at some point some fundamental changed within me and I actually gained an appreciation for the entire process of commerce. And that has made all the difference. It's also made me hyper aware of how many advertising efforts are short-circuiting themselves in the effort to maintain the "art" of the brand.

Creating Synergy To The Sale

The reason I spend so much time on this today, is because I think it's key for those of you out there choosing an agency partner.

A good grasp of the artistic side of advertising is definitely important. Your brand is not a logo. It's an emotional response. And a well-designed and perfectly written ad is a great means of conveying these emotions.

But making that leap from art to ROI is also critical. And it's a lot easier and more effective when the artistic brand portion of things is also excited and engaged with the in-the-field selling part of things. Because then your brand becomes a living, breathing and actionable experience, that's when people line up to shell out the cash.

And once again I use Apple as an example. Because while the agency work may be high-art, the brand itself is controlled by the ultimate Sham Wow pitchman himself, Mr. Steve Jobs. Apples shows how the two worlds of art and selling can co-exist and work together. Because the art inspires emotion and the pitch is experiential and memorable. It's a brand that leads to a pitch. And a pitch that takes all it's cues from the brand. The result is rabid loyalty. It's no longer just a desire for a product. It's a desire for the feeling that this product inspires.

Wouldn't you like that in your business?

Our Very Own Evil Empires

Admittedly I've become quite biased on this question. I'm a small marketing consultant running a small marketing podcast talking with other small bloggers. Of course your humble host of The BeanCast thinks that agency networks are evil!

But all that aside, I tried to be impartial as I pulled together this coming week's show. I really wanted to present a balanced debate about the networks. I mean there has to be some good reason for these giant, one-stop shops to exist, right?

Well, seemingly not.

Unexpected Support

The first indication I had that maybe I would have a hard time finding a balance to my perspective was the surprising and overwhelming support I got when I announced George Parker was coming on my show.

His blog, AdScam/The Horror!, is to put it mildly, "controversial." In spite of my chastising of the 4As over their handling of his comments, I still viewed him as a fringe player. I could not have been more wrong.

Person after person contacted me to tell me what a fan they were of his. And I got a sense it wasn't just his ranting style and his use of expletives. There was something deeper. He was tapping into a core dissatisfaction that a lot of people were feeling with the way things were being run in the agency world.

But more than all this, he was representing for a vision of something better. Working at an agency used to be more about the work and ideas. Now it was all about power and money. And in investigating this, I began to come face-to-face with the myths of the agency network.

"The Clients Want It" Myth

For years the justification for buying lots of smaller shops and combining resources into one-stop shopping was "It's what the client wants. It will give them better service." This myth was heralded as the driving force of the agency network model. "Clients don't want their agencies fight and scheming. They want everything under a single source of control."

Sounds good. Except I now think this is a chicken-or-the-egg argument. There's every indication that the model wasn't requested as much as it was suggested.

The "pain" for clients was indeed that there was lack of focus and cooperation among agency partners. They wanted clear leadership on their accounts. So the bigger agencies, in a bid for control and power, tried to meet the need. Them's the facts, people. The agency network was the ultimate "frenemy" tactic as the agencies tried to screw each other out of business. There was no benefit to client intended.

"You'll Get Better Work" Myth

There are undeniable advantages to being big. Production values scale with control of budget and playing with a bigger pie always delivers flashy excitement.

But anyone can see that the work is not necessarily "better." Quite a bit of the best work in the last 20 years has come from the smaller shops out there. What's more, these smaller shops were working minor marketing miracles with smaller budgets. (Can anyone say, "Mini?") And conversely, when these smaller shops were snapped up by the bigger players, the work would many times suffer.

Now I'm not saying that small shops are doing better work than big shops. What I'm saying is that the individual agency culture has more to do with the work than the size of the network they are part of. And great work is still spread quite evenly among network shops and independents. There's simply no clear-cut creative advantage in size. The only advantages are to the holding companies themselves and they are business and monetary advantages.

"You'll Eliminate Power Struggles" Myth

There is clearly a problem with working with many agencies. Getting them to play nice, share information and respond to central leadership remains near impossible. Each player feels they can do it better than the others and each is always pulling off the gloves behind closed doors with the client. So the proposed advantage of the agency model was the end of power struggles.

Yeah right!

Do I really need to go into what we all know is the case? Each individual shop within every network is still beholden to making their own profitability goals for each fiscal year. So while the egalitarian veneer looks pretty at first, it invariably curls up and splits apart under the weight of financial reports.

If anything, the situation became more complicated and political, as the agencies were forced to look for ever more creative ways to jockey for their share of the pie. If there was one good thing about the network model, it would have been this. But if anything, it's been one of the biggest failings of the model.

"All the Best Talent" Myth

Here's the kicker for me. The idea of the network agency model was that in size they would aggregate all the best talent into a single organization.

But what invariably happened after mergers? The talent was laid off, while the management retained power. And now that the economy has gone south, we see even more blatant and egregious examples of managers taking bonuses and preparing retirement packages as thousands of these "best talents" are looking for work.

This is one of the few times that I actually have more respect for the Japanese corporate model where at least the executives would have the decency to resign in shame when the business is tanking. But in the agency world, the least talented individuals in the model fire those with the talent, then hire their friends to "make the work better" with the broken and scarred wreckage of a staff.

It's all About Power

I want to be clear and say again that there is still really good work happening in big agency networks. But I also say unequivocally that none of this great work is happening because it is coming from a network agency.

The network model is about power. Plain and simple. It's about profits and personal fortunes and has nothing to do with the quality of the work. If clients would abide it and if it worked and if profits were rising, every commercial on TV would be Sham Wow in quality and every print ad would have a star-burst. And not a single network executive outside of the figurehead Chief Creative Officer would complain.

So for me at least, it's clear that the networks as they are structured today are actively working against all of our best interests. They are ruining our credibility and something needs to be done quick before everything implodes.

It's All Or Nothing

Again and again I hear from clients about their fear of social media. (Yes, I do have a life outside of running a marketing podcast. The BeanCast really doesn't pay many bills around here.)

So here's just a sample of what I've heard:

Legal would never allows us to Tweet!

We could never allow our users to have their own Facebook page!

We would love to have a blog, but approvals are crazy!

And on and on.

Now before we get up on our high-social-media-we-know-better-than-you horses, though, let's consider what's being said here. These are all valid concerns. It's very easy for us on the outside to poke our high-minded ideals into their insular corporate world and say, "Trust us!" But where are the repeatable examples of success? Where are the case studies that show on-going value? Where is the proof that all of this won't collapse into litigation left in the hands of their inexperienced staff?

Sure, there are indications it works and in the hands of the right people social tactics can be tremendously successful. But we just don't have the rock-solid justifications yet.

My "New" Model

In thinking about all this today, it came to mind that I needed a graphic. I needed something simple to illustrate both how social media can be used and what each component of engagement activity represents. Because it occurred to me that there was no reason to sell social as an all or nothing model.

So this is what I came up with:

The premise of the model is incredibly simple. Because at it's core social marketing is no different from any interpersonal communication. We listen. We respond. And we tell. Brilliant, right?

But more importantly, this model establishes a few key insights:

Insight #1-Listening is the Foundation

Listening used to have a less appealing name on the Internet. It was called lurking. But even lurking is better than being clueless about what is being said about your brand. Even if there is no support for social media within your organization, you have absolutely no excuse not to be at least listening in to know what's working and what's not. And if you are building support, you can't go anywhere in the social space effectively without laying a foundation here.

Insight #2-Interaction Doesn't Have to be Online

There is no doubt that a public response to online challenges is preferred. After all, a public challenge is no longer just about the challenger, but includes everyone who is exposed to the challenge. They are all looking to see how you respond. But we understand the need for baby steps some times. So even if you take the response offline into more accepted channels, that's better than no respond at all.

Insight #3-You Can't Reach the Peak Without the Base

Everyone always seems to go to the peak first and talk about blogs and blogger outreach and videos and twittering and forum posts, etc. etc. But I say forget about it! If you are representing your brand, there's no good business case for me to make about you jumping into this space first. Maybe you're a natural. Maybe you'll do really well right out of the gate. More than likely, though, you won't. So concentrate on the first two layers of the pyramid first. Get established. Listen. Try your hand at responding. And pretty soon you'll see how the first two layers can feed the last one. After all, it's much better to write content you know your audience will appreciate, then to just do more one-way talking.

No Threat Here

It's funny, the more I write about this stuff, the more I realize that social marketing follows the same rules marketers have always espoused. There's nothing new here, except the venue. We're still talking about dialogue. We're still talking about engagement. We're still talking about responsiveness. So get back the basics, ignore the hype and see how all this fits into your programs. With a reasonable perspective you'll begin to see that social is not nearly the threat that it's perceived to be.