This post was written last week, hence the apparent date discrepancies
Given that the end of the first Squared module is coming up, and that I am blogging about doing said course, I feel somewhat obliged to write a post about what I have learnt so far. But as I am a total newbie to digital marketing do not expect fancy things like this:
“In 2009, author and management consultant Paul Greenberg provided a definition for the new customer-centric approach, which he termed Social Customer Relationship Management:
‘. . . a philosophy and a business strategy, supported by a technology platform, business rules, workflow, processes and social characteristics, designed to engage the customer in a collaborative conversation in order to provide mutually beneficial value in a trusted and transparent business environment. It’s the company’s response to the customer’s ownership of the conversation.’” (Courtesy of the Hootsuite blog)
However, I will try to be all insightful and whatnot. I haven’t really posted anything hugely reflective on the actual digital marketing game because of my neonate status. Being reflective requires something to be there first (e.g. a mirror); I am more of a sponge at this stage. With squared trousers…Anyway, on with the musings.
The above quote reflects one of the key points I have absorbed; the age of social media as also birthed the era of true corporate accountability. All it takes is one negative tweet and the jig is up. So that’s a win for the consumer (and the ethical Christian in me). On the corporate side this development may seem irksome in the short term. On the other hand, long term, a brand’s need to foster trust may result in more sales as trust in a brand tends to create brand advocates. AKA marketing gold dust.
The very fact that businesses have lost control of the conversation pleases the anarchic Brit in me deeply.
A scarier thing for the consumer (although 75% of us don’t care) is the massive data wakes we leave as we surf the interweb, and what Google et al do with it. Whilst our fiendface data may result in more personalised services on the Web, it can also result in the filter bubble. The idea that an algorithm is effectively trying to get into my head and predict what I want to see when I google “walruses snorting rainbows” (if it actually needs to think about that one, it is clearly a crap algorithm) is terrifying. Never mind the implications for attempts to broaden my horizons with things I may not “like”. I already blocked ads, but I had no idea my search results could be messed with. After learning that particular fact I promptly started deleting cookies left, right and centre (2016 of them), and I amped up my tracking blocks. Fun fact: my average online browsing session produces 300+ cookies. This creepy internet stalking has further vindicated all my feelings about social media.
Out of interest I compared the search results for me and my Dad (who doesn’t really know/care about cookies etc) for “digital camera”. Excluding slight rank variation, identical. Either a) my dad is mysteriously blocking tracking etc b), my Dad has no soul or c) My tracking blocks have failed, so I AM my Dad. Out of b) or c), I’m not sure which is worse.
The most important thing I have learnt is that digital is rather magical at being agile (h/t to Neil Perkin), and this has some rather wonderful consequences. It means that creativity is the rule in digital, which is great for me as I want to be a creative person. It also means that this industry is a land of opportunity, whoever you are.
It means that maybe I can do this.
p.s. I have also started to wonder if everyone has one viral idea, rather like in the 20th century when we said everyone had one novel in them. Or do we have one ebook in us? Or do we have one viral idea AND one ebook…