Bridging the rift between social media and traditional media

Is there a company concerned with marketing its products and services that has not yet tapped into the power of social media? Is there also a company that has never used traditional media for any form of advertising in times past though actively involved in the production of goods and services? What makes traditional and social media so different and how can these two come together for an organisation’s benefit?
There are indeed many differences between traditional and social media; the table below lists a few of these differences.

Social Media Two-way conversation One-on-one marketing  About you Brand and User-generated Content FREE platform Metric: Engagement Actors: Users/ Influencers Real time creation

Traditional Media One-way conversation Mass marketing About ME Professional content Paid platform Metric: Reach/ frequency Actors/ Celebrities Pre-produced/ scheduled

Traditional media have been key elements in successful media campaigns for decades and, in some cases, centuries. Talk of television, radio, print, etc. Each traditional channel is able to broadcast messaging to an audience that is significant in some way––be it in size, demographic make-up, geography, or any combination thereof.

Traditional media rely heavily on a one-to-many paradigm — the brand creates a message and transmits that message to the masses through broadcast, print, radio, or signage. Traditional media is a one-way communication system that does not create engagement or work toward promoting word of mouth — the hallmarks of social media. Consumers do not believe in brands, at least not anymore. After years of testing out claims made by brands, consumers have found out that many of them lied about what they could actually do and not do. “Will that toothpaste make my teeth whiter than that of competitors? Your generic message shows you do not really care about ME and it does not give me a way to talk back to you.” This is actually what traditional media does.

However, brands should care about engagement and word of mouth. They should be willing to listen to their customers and provide real time feedback on questions and issues they may have.

Because the consumer cannot talk back when messages are put through traditional media, brands never learned that consumers preferred products that came in smaller sizes, a different color, or had more features. Brands failed in this regard because they could not give consumers what they really wanted except for yearly or sometimes quarterly researches which came a little too late.

Like traditional media, social media may have a specific definition, but it actually has a much broader application. Social media is any technology that allows people to network with one another. However, social media is less about the platforms and more about the behaviour it creates; it is about engagement, and engagement is about humans.

Social media, when done right, corrects all the flaws of traditional media or even better, supports traditional media in bringing real value to both consumers and organisations– it is a two-way communication system.

“Rather than getting brand messages, you get recommendations from friends in the form of re-shares and recommended posts, which de-commercializes the brand message.

Social media creates word of mouth advertising that make brand claims more believable. Word of mouth is much more powerful than traditional brand messages - according to Nielsen, 92% of consumers believe word of mouth more than traditional advertising.

Yes, traditional media uses catchy jingles and images in hopes that people would talk about the brand, but generating word of mouth from commercials is hard to control, develop, and measure. Luckily, social media provides analytics difficult to get from traditional media. When a brand broadcasts a message on television, they have little idea how well it worked. However, when a brand sends a message through social media, you know how many people saw the message, how many shared or endorsed the message, and how many sales resulted from the social media efforts. This control and accountability alone make social media a valuable tool for brands.

Social networks increasingly replace more traditional communities and this is what draws billions of people into social networks and convinces them to spend significant time engaging in the social network.

While most advertising (traditional media) is designed for mass consumption, social media involves one on one marketing.  That means the message should appear addressed to individual users.  Hence, marketers need to understand their target market on each network so messages appear tailored to the individual.

But it is not all rosy with social media; Social media campaigns can be time consuming and the impact can disseminate very quickly, whereas traditional marketing campaigns, certainly in television, can produce short term results that have greater tangibility.

One thing must be noted however, that social media is not a replacement for traditional media. The two must work hand in hand to achieve the maximum benefit needed for brand success. So how can social media and traditional media be integrated?

During the 2012 U.S. presidential campaign, a four-stage process (Origination-Dispersal-Amplification-Reinforcement) worked effectively for both the Obama and the Romney camps. Irrespective of political party or the content of a particular message, the ebb and flow of these campaign messages through social media and conventional news media followed a predictable pattern. Within about five days after a campaign advertisement launch, a social media analysis could show whether or not the message had gained traction. Once a specific message achieved significant momentum and exposure, it had the potential to transition into a traditional news media story, at which point a campaign team could reinforce it with additional communications and advertising.
For messages that did not gain traction in social media, a campaign could attempt to shock the system again with further communications. However, the message does not gain traction in social media within fourteen days; it had little hope of ever capturing the limelight. Then campaigns were better served by moving on to a new message.
In another example in 2011, apparel manufacturer Patagonia shocked the system by running a full-page ad in The New York Times with the provocative headline: “Don’t Buy This Jacket.” In the ad, consumers were asked to go online and sign a two-part pledge. In signing, both the consumers and Patagonia agreed to reduce consumption and waste by buying items only when needed, repairing them when they break and recycling products at the end of their useful life. Striking a nerve with sustainability-conscious consumers, the campaign generated significant buzz in blogs and online communities. That buzz prompted media coverage in prestigious outlets, including The Wall Street Journal, The Huffington Post and The Guardian in the UK. The aim of the campaign was to reinforce Patagonia as a high-quality brand that offers durable, long-lasting products. The integration of social and traditional media spread that message, fortified with the clout of traditional media.
Social media has opened a modern window through which marketers can watch in real time as a story propagates, opinions form, the news media takes an interest and minds change. Integrating that capability with their other communications tools can give companies another significant capability to shape their stakeholders’ opinions. By the same token, not understanding how social and traditional media work together can nullify a company’s ability to spot and respond effectively to harmful messages as they build momentum and attract the interest of traditional media. 

Credit – ftjournal.com