Who should be more offended, branders or SM folk?
In a somewhat disparaging “this can’t really be happening, right?” BusinessWeek article called “Twitter, Twitter, Little Stars,” author Felix Gillette manages to slap two disciplines with one fell swoop. In trying to describe the somewhat chaotic rush by businesses to add social media professionals to their staff, Gillette makes this statement:
“The chief social media officer may be supplanting the chief branding officer as the zaniest human resources innovation in memory.”
Wow. Really? I’m not sure who should be more insulted, brand evangelists or social media zealots. Casting those who’ve built amazing brands at such places as Nike, Starbucks, Apple, the Mayo Clinic or Zappos as zany seems a bit misplaced, but hey, what do I know, I don’t work for BusinessWeek.
As someone who believes in both disciplines as important to any organization’s success, I guess I’m doubly the fool. The whole story is a tad pretentious, written with a little bit of a “tut-tut” attitude regarding how organizations are scrambling to hire people to manage their social media strategies. (E.G. “Opportunities in corporate social media are popping up faster than cat videos on YouTube.”) But it also does a good job of painting a fair picture of why such a position is in fact important, and how the career path is growing.
And no matter what Gillette thinks, neither title is even close to the ridic combo of “HR/Marketing” veeps that seem to be sweeping the healthcare industry.
Thanks for sharing this Chris… some people still don’t see the value in SM, or branding for that matter!
Poor choice of words by BW, but I understand the feeling of the “chaotic rush” you noted. I do believe social media has great merit, but also feel like we’re headed down a similar path that led to the dot.com bubble burst. There isn’t automatic gold at the end of this social media rush. Some are placing way too much importance on one particular tactic. Remember the days when new grads could make $70k working at a dot.com? Some days it feels like we’re there again and I don’t think the market can sustain that long-term just as it didn’t 10 years ago.
I’m sooo with you on the “HR/Marketing” heads. Recently heard of a MN travel related biz that did away w/ their CMO and replaced with a HR/Marketing VP. My thoughts of that company went down several notches. Hugely disappointing for the industry.
Whether or not I agree with the tone of the original article, I have to agree with the overall point. Social media shouldn’t be the lead at any company. I think that’s what he’s getting at with this: “The chief social media officer may be supplanting the chief branding officer as the zaniest human resources innovation in memory.”
Social media (sorry, folks) is still just one channel that a company can use to market and communicate to its customers. If it take a place on top of the marketing pyramid, you’ve got problems since social media cannot address every marketing challenge. That’s why marketing needs to be the umbrella and lead function with social media under that (and not under PR either).
JMR
Great comments, Nancy and Jonathon. Jonathon, ur right, I guess I have to agree with you on the take on the CSM quote. I was so focused on the dis to the chief branding officer (which, I do believe, is a valid position, with my bias hanging out there) – a chief social media officer is over the top. Not sure there really are any CSMs – are there? But the author’s probably making this exaggeration to help demonstrate the chicken-with-their-heads-cut-off scramble of many orgs to staff for social media. Which is definitely a fair assessment.
I also took the tone of the article to discount the need for SM staff at all, but maybe I over-read it. We’re having a heated debate on that topic internally, which will burst on the transom Monday when we release the next podcast.