PR Agencies own Social Media Marketing

The best post I wrote this year is the Social Media Marketing Framework, it helped to get my job at The Population and is something that I keep referring too (if you are lazy check out the 5 min video).

After the Paul McIntrye article in the Sydney Morning Herald about Social Media and the focus of PR Agencies owning Social Media, I thought it would be good to look at the model and see who was best set up to help a company with this discipline.

As you can see it is a bit of everyone. Really at the end of the day, who gives a flying unicorn who is the right person to hand Social Media, lets just get some kick arse projects out there and let the agency thing sort itself out.

10 comments:

Scotland said...

Couldn't agree more Julian. I don't care if the fishmonger does the best social media thinking. Ultimately it will come down to executions, and the people who best understand their target markets and can serve them most efficiently will no doubt be the champion centaurs of the new terrain as it evolves.

Kate Richardson said...

Hmmm...I reckon everyone says they really don't care but they do. Whilst it's in the broader interest for agencies to 'grow the category', everyone has business realities.

Do I sound cynical?

Jules, where is the (or should there be a) role for the communications planning agency in your model?

Maybe another way to look at it rather than 'inserting said agency here' might be to articulate the purpose of that stage. Because then it's more about the role of the agency rather than which agency . For example, there's no reason why an advertising agency needs to be responsible for 'the platform' vs another agency

Stan Lee said...

Flying unicorn? I'd like to see one of those.

Anonymous said...

Big full service agencies will say big full service agencies are best suited to execute SM campaigns. PR agencies say PR agencies are best to manage SM campaigns. SM startup agencies think they are the only people on earth who can plan SM campaigns. Yawn of an article.
The problem is too much talk and not enough action. Clients are too scared to experiment because of hostile marcoms industry.

Griffin Farley said...

I don't know about the economic climate in Australia but the social media is prime to ignite in America. Clients are cutting Paid media budgets and are looking for new ways to use Owned or Earned media to extend their presence. Social Marketing might be served up as an cost saving solution in this economy to build word of mouth awareness and long term brand loyalty.

Simon T Small said...

Look overseas and see who's driving SM, and PR agencies are doing it... The question is, why aren't Australian PR agencies catching up? Hence the population.

I think in the long run it'll become the same as any other channel and will be moved inside the planning team of an agency. Who knows when or how.

But can't agree more, lets get some clients doing something and getting results.

Infact clients are very interested, I caught up with the GM of the Australian Marketing Institute last week, she said one of their most successful events (which Jules was speaking at) was the SM seminar.

Who knows where it'll go...

tamir said...

Interesting. SM is the new buzz word. Here are my 2 cents. 1: SM is just another solution. Like viral. or a microsite. I remember Gillespie saying that on one of his posts. What is SM? are we selling strategy? campaign? a facebook application? 2. Every client is different. I believe every client has a different solution online and I will love to see a process of thinking instead of just hailing the SM flag as the ultimate solution..

Nathan McDonald said...

Julian, interesting framework you have developed. I'm coming to this a little late, but I'll add a few points into the mix:

I'm not sure whether you intend for the model to be linear (i.e. should be done in order: 1, 2, 3, then 4), but the numbering and the diagram implies that it is. I'd suggest that although 'Marketing Intelligence' should always come first, the others should not necessarily be implemented in that order. It might not always be right to jump in to the conversation with a response until you have sorted out your content or the platform from which to respond.

I tend to agree with Kate - people do care, especially agencies, and by extension clients. Clients want great work and they want to know that the agency is structured to deliver both the best thinking and the best implementation. As a specialist social media agency I would say this, but most ATL and digital agencies are not structurally set up to deliver the whole package. At least not cost effectively. Some PR agencies are, however many still have a foot in the 'traditional' PR world, and so whilst any given PR agency may have social media experts, it’s rare for an entire PR account team (let alone their management) to have in-depth understanding of social media.

Roger, Online PR Agency guy said...

Interesting graph there. I (think I) agree with you... when all's said and done it's a total no-brainer for PR agencies to own the 'social' arena. They're the guys who (ought to) have a privileged position of consulting influence, and they're the guys with all the content smarts. So they should be able to rattle off a tonne of great 'social' services

...but we know that's not the reality right..? Because most PR agencies have got their head in the sand. My guess is that a bunch of the social specialist will continue to thrive until this changes

Jason Dojc said...

You're right. Whether it's PR or digital, or ad agency who handles social media is partly semantics and partly agency positioning.

The key takeaway is that social media marketing is a multi-disciplinary practice and the agency or agencies that get the work will need a multi-disciplinary talent pool to make it work.