Mediaboss Marketing

Summary:A prominent author tells brands that social media will not help their bottom line. Marketing leaders think differently.

An article on the Harvard Business Review site presents a limited, shortsighted perspective on the business value of social media and makes incorrect recommendations to readers. The author suggests social media is a waste of resources when the opposite is true.

The article's title asks, "Is Social Media Actually Helping Your Company's Bottom Line?" and offers a graphic, saying #NOPE, in response. It's a great social media tactic that will certainly capture page views.

Image created by Michael Krigsman

To answer the title question, the article makes this argument:

In summary, the article argues that social media does not contribute to sales in a measurable way and, therefore, is a hype-ridden waste of time.

Unfortunately, by defining the value of social media purely in terms of sales, the author ignores the value of social media in building relationships with customers, offering responsive technical support, and engaging efforts to establish a sustainable base of consumer advocates.

As an academic, the author has impeccable and impressive credentials. However, this is one of those times we must ask people working in the field for their comment. Therefore, I invited top several marketing and analyst practitioners to share their thoughts.

Mike Fauscette is Group Vice President at analyst firm IDC and one of the most respected thinkers about enterprise social media in the world. He offers specific examples that can produce ROI for brands using social media:

People share personal and behavioral data on social networks, and via social media, every second; businesses use tools to "listen" and collect this data. Some businesses buy this data aggregated and enriched by third-party providers (like the Oracle data cloud, for example). They place the data in context and use it for many things, including:

Go here to read the rest:
Is social media really a waste of time? Harvard professor gets it wrong