I left a comment on a blog that wouldn’t leave me alone all day. So here’s a fuller response, and I hope it breaks my blogger’s block.
Antony Mayfield is delighted with Dell’s approach to social media, as represented in this video interview, in particular. Even without that, it’s clear that the company has embraced many of the concepts wholeheartedly through initiatives like IdeaStorm. As Antony the interviewee, Andy Lark, Dell’s head of Global Marketing, points out, the company’s commitment to social tools is pretty thorough:
The social media stuff is probably the most important we do today, from a marketing stand point. The other elements of marketing mix has sort of become more and more transactional and more and more tactical in nature. Social media stuff is much more strategic… Use social media to power the fundamental of the business. That’s what we’re focused on. [Mayfield’s transcription — thank you]
Great stuff. And here’s that interview in full:
To be clear, Antony is one of the good guys — I just disagree with his opinion on this one.
The part where I started to become anxious comes late in the piece, at about 4:00. Lark contrasts the approach taken by new media journalists with the old school. BBC journalists apparently now come along with a digital recorder and immediately ask if they can podcast the interview. The old school — regional journalists, he says — turn up with a notepad and pen. That’s a failure on the part of the latter group, according to Lark:
“The content that I’m giving them is the asset, not their translation”.
That’s *not* true. The media is there to question, to analyse and to be sceptical about the ‘asset’ that’s been given to them by Lark. It is certainly not its function to broadcast that ‘asset’ verbatim and without question. That’s what we people who turn up with a notepad and pen and ‘don’t get it’ call an advertisement.
I think we raise a couple of questions here about quite how wonderful 24-hour on-the-moment publishing and releasing to social media sources at the same time as traditional media sources is. If the statements issued by marketing directors are taken as ‘the record’, then we miss out on the opportunity to compare a company’s claims with their financial records, the research that’s been done into their brand value and customer service records, comparisons with competing propositions from rival manufacturers, and the benefits of a broader view. I have nothing against Dell — my current PC is a Dell, and it’s fine.
But, goodness, if I were head of global marketing at any brand, I’m sure that a podcast of my words on a well-trafficked website would be far preferable to an in-depth review of my products or an analysis of my financial performance somewhere else.
The function of journalism is not simply to report or transcribe what powerful figures and institutions want us to. We need to question, analyse and remain continually sceptical, while also remaining neutral. If we can’t do the latter, then declaring our interests immediately.
Taking a little longer to file a story doesn’t mean that you don’t ‘get it’ (a dreadful expression) but might mean that ‘oh yes, we get it alright, and we’re not letting you get away with it!’
Share this post:
Journalists always say that they give value by being intermediaries, but it’s pretty clear that a lot have lost their independence in free lunches and ‘goodies’. Social media sidesteps that neatly.
I’m not entirely sure what James Browne is smoking to make the above comment.
If anything it’s a lot easier to subvert social media than “traditional” journalism. Let a blogger feel they’re on the inside, and they’ll roll over just like an eager to please puppy. Just look at the A-stream bloggers, and the problems they’re having trying to reinvent the journalistic ethics that most of the independent media have developed over centuries of work.
Learning to question and analyse is one of the key journalism skills. Straightforward reportage is only part of the story… (so as to speak)
Just because it’s old skool, doesn’t mean it’s not worth learning from.
Disclosure bit, I work for Porter Novelli, the global PR agency and I agree with Simon that it’s prolly far easier to subvert social media than traditional media. While it would be foolish to lump all bloggers together, it would be equally foolish to assume that all of them are totally ethical. Yes traditional media may accept a free lunch or dinner but it was never a guarantee that what a spokesperson said would be reproduced verbatim. In fact, that wasn’t the point.
That aside, I don’t think that many brands are currently using social media strategically. Most of them seem to be thinking very, very tactically in terms of ugc competitions and seemingly purposeless corporate blogs. If they were thinking strategically, then I suspect we would be hearing less about what they are doing and more about how they are listening to what they are now able to hear and how they are reacting to it.
Also agree that ‘get it’ is a horrid expression, I have the urge to snap back the fingers of every person who uses it and includes the air punctuation.
Interesting post. Does it have to be one not the other? Can I not get the journalists’ considered ‘interpretation’ in words and then link to the source interview if I wish? Having seen the way journalists can sometimes can totally distort content, there are times when I would dearly love to see or hear the basic interview. Mostly I might be happy with the journalits’ view of it, but ocassionally I would like to know more when things are important to me and it would certainly serve to keep them honest.
I disappeared for a few days after you posted this, Ian — or I’d have dropped by earlier.
My delight in Dell’s approach is emphatic, but I was more focused on the stuff earlier on about how central social media was to the strategy of the company, it’s business strategy.
I don’t feel easy with the dismissal of “their translation” but I don’t think the BBC journalists he admires for their turning up with podcasting in mind are lacking in their ability to question, analyse and have some healthy scepticism.
David’s right: I’d like both versions: the transcript / source material and the interpretation — or at least I’d like the option to have both…
And I agree with Kerry G — both about the strategy bit and the lazy “get it” expression.
[…] Original post by Ian Delaney […]