Social Media: 'Agencies Don't Get It,' Survey Says

TNS/Cymfony study polled more than 60 marketers

NEW YORK Clients are placing more emphasis on mastering social media but find their agencies ill equipped to help them succeed in that space, according to a new survey.

TNS Media Intelligence/Cymfony polled more than 60 marketers in North America, France and the U.K. to gauge how they are faring navigating the world of social media. It asked them for feedback on their agencies' abilities to help. TNS found, in its words, "Agencies don't get it."

Clients complained that their agencies -- creative, media, public relations, design and others -- typically treat social channels like blogs as traditional media. In other cases, their ideas are not backed up by practical skills in the area. What's more, one client pointed out that his agencies have little of their own experience using social networks or video-sharing sites for themselves.

"I think traditional ad agencies have very little contribution to make," Bryan Simkins, a marketing specialist at FedEx, told TNS. "They are mostly driven by their compensation models which are made for closed media. Those models don't apply in open media."

The increase in social media has led other analysts to highlight the dearth of skills at agencies to help clients navigate the social landscape. Forrester Research, for instance, published a report last month that found agencies are poorly structured to help clients leverage opportunities with communities of shared interests.

"The existing marketing partners do not understand the ins and outs of the social media space," David Harris, e-business manager at Suzuki, told TNS. "They can do more harm than good if they apply old models."

Jim Nail, chief marketing and strategy officer at TNS Media Intelligence/Cymfony, said frustration from clients surveyed, only some of which was published, was across the board.

"You get the sense that agencies talk a good game," he said. "They put up a good presentation about what social media is, but when you get to implementing campaigns, the day-to-day management skills are not meeting the marketers' expectations."

That could haunt agencies as more clients make social media a top priority.

Nearly 50 percent of marketers said social-media efforts needed to be handled at an executive level with "significant" resources. Another 30 percent agreed social media is a "revolutionary opportunity."

In his comments, Intuit's Scott Wilder called it a "Pandora's box" of consumers relying on word of mouth to evaluate companies and products.

"One of the big barriers right now is people are struggling with where this lives and how it is incorporated into their organizations," Nail said, pointing out that social media cuts across marketing, public relations and customer service.

The perceived lack of social media competence at agencies will present opportunities for new providers, Nail predicted, as too many agencies hew narrowly to their niche, whether it's media, creative or PR -- something backed up by client feedback.

"I really think that agencies need to focus heavily on how they can build excitement within the live space of the Internet," Carolyn Holliday, e-marketing manager at Fila USA, told TNS. "Outside of just placing ads, they need to start dialogues with existing and potential customers."

yermwbxz9k

People Will Talk -- About Social Networking. A Lot.

by Catharine P. Taylor

IT IS A WEEK AND 41 new Facebook friends since my first appearance as Mediapost's Social Media Insider. (I received a few LinkedIn connection requests, but no MySpace friend requests. And none for Plaxo, either.) Some of my new friends, like Entertainment Weekly's Scott Donaton and Forrester's Charlene Li, are actually friends rediscovered through the social graph. Others, like a guy who updated his status 10 minutes ago to say that he is talking Flex with some developers, are people I don't know. But, I assume that he read my column and took my pitch for Facebook friends to heart -- as so many of you did.

So, if my original group of 54 friends from last week was a somewhat loose collection of people in my professional circle (mostly people who I've hung out with ever since I started writing about this Internet thang), now it's warped into something almost indistinguishable. I wanted all these friends and yet I don't actually know them. Such is the peculiarity of friendships in the virtual world.

I certainly wasn't expecting this much response to my first column. But greetings to all my new Facebook friends, and thanks to the (at least) 30 other people who emailed or commented at the bottom of the column itself. Say the phrase "social networking" in a crowded room, and I guess it really gets people talking.

If you read last week's column, you know I decided to come clean and make clear that, as intrigued as I am by social networks and social media, I also have a lot of skepticism about parts of this world. Huge valuations based on nascent business models? I've seen that movie before. What I thought I'd get back by attempting to deflate the hype was a ream of preachy emails complaining about how I didn't get it, how I didn't understand that social media would rewrite relationships in the real world, kill mass market advertising forever-- and perhaps bring world peace.

Instead, what I got back were emails that read more like confessionals, as many of my new friends admitted that they, too, were skeptical. Wrote one woman, "I definitely appreciate your candor about feeling both intrigued and skeptical about social media." Said another, "Although I'm not a 40-something soccer mom, and I am a social media strategist, I *totally* get what you mean by 'skeptical'."

Said another, "I have to admit, I am on Facebook quite a bit, and I have not engaged in any of those quizzes, games or polls. I think I was turned off by one floating around about a year ago that measured whether you were a 'better person' than someone else. How can a social network tell, and if I lost, would I really want that broadcast to the world?"

Sheesh. Great question.

I guess I'm not alone.

While I leave you pondering that, I'm off to the final morning of the Interactive Advertising Bureau conference to see a few people in the flesh.

Next week I promise to write more about the business implications of social networking. Enough yammering on about me and my new friends.

Deconstructing Search Engine Bias

by Rob Garner


Over my last two columns I've looked at activist-initiated campaigns to provide deeper insight into the way people use search engines, both in terms of the impact on searchers, and from the perspective of those who see search as an effective communications tool. While also considering the trust searchers place in their search engine, one additional insight I gained from talking with activists and reviewing their campaigns is the increased importance on search as editorial, for both natural and paid search. Considering both a searcher's trust, and that search results can also be viewed as editorial content, I thought it would be interesting to switch gears and explore the topic of search engine bias, particularly for the purpose of helping the average searcher better understand and think more critically about his or her search engine results.

For a thorough discussion of the major issues surrounding algorithmic bias, I highly recommend reading Eric Goldman's "Search Engine Bias and the End of Search Engine Utopianism," first published in the Yale Journal of Law and Technology in Spring 2006. In it he discusses why bias exists, why bias is desirable and necessary, how market forces limit the scope of bias, and how engines are accountable to "fickle searchers." Goldman also asserts that engines are beholden to "majority interests," and that PageRank's "non-egalitarian voting structure causes search results to be biased towards websites with economic power because these websites get lots of links due to their marketing expenditures and general prominence."

While I don't agree with the paper's end conclusion that personalization will eventually render bias moot, it does offer a very thorough and logical presentation on the premise and issues around search engine bias. In building on Goldman's description of PageRank as a type of bias, the following list highlights other additional elements of search bias (note that there are many more considerations than those listed here):

Anti-spam bias (real or perceived spam). If a site appears to be spam, as defined by the engine, then that site or offending document might not rank as well as it would otherwise, or could be permanently banned from the engine's index altogether. Meta refresh, and even the use of same-color text on same-color background are examples of tactics that have been previously used by spammers. Adapting these tactics might create a permanent bias against your site, even if first intentions were good, and the site is "legitimate" (as Google refers to sites in the patent document link below).

Big site / authority bias. Simply put, bigger sites with unique content, years of domain trust and a healthy backlink structure have a greater chance of getting a new page ranked across a wider variety of terms and phrases, as opposed to a much smaller site with fewer or no links, and a narrower-themed scope.
Blog / buzz bias. Blogs have hit prime time in Google Web search, and a blog with the previously mentioned characteristics can get ranked in minutes -- and sometimes even stay in position for months or longer.

Bold text bias. Bias is also shown in a SERP when a keyword or phrase matching a query is bolded or highlighted. Bolded text in the title, description and even the URL can make someone look, give them a reason to click, or give them a reason to bypass other non-bolded listings.

Domain bias. A trusted domain is given credence and higher visibility in the search engine results. Newer domains have to prove themselves by myriad factors. Google patent #20050071741 details many ways in which a "legitimate" domain may be considered in its algorithm (see claims 38-40). Be aware that just because it's written in the patent, doesn't necessarily mean that it is being used by the engine. Other details in this patent also offer many other possibilities of Google bias.

Feed and submission bias. Paid and free feeds now permeate the first page for certain results sets. Yahoo intersperses paid listings into its natural results ( Search Submit Pro), and Google Base provides top Web listings for maps, product listings and more. To get in, you have to pay or submit directly for free.

Link bias. Links are the cornerstones of most popular search engine algorithms, and the difference between having a lot of quality links, or no links at all, is the different between being found, or not.

Image / video bias. As Hotchkiss's eyetracking research found, images visible above the fold can prompt someone to quickly scan to your asset over other text assets on the search results page.

Textual bias. As simple and obvious as it sounds, at this point in search history, results are heavily weighted toward text. Designing sites in Flash or other image-based elements can make your site fall victim to this bias, unless other considerations for text are made.

Paid search bias. Like it or not, the top search results page is biased towards paid search. This is a simple bias to overcome -- just break out your credit card.

Personalization bias. Personalization bias is when the search engine shows customized results based on a user's previous search history, sites visited, subscribed feeds, geographic or IP location, and other factors.

Hopefully this list illustrates that bias is often the reason we choose one search engine over another, but it doesn't negate the need to think critically about search results. If you have any additional thoughts or additions to the list, post them to the Search Insider blog.

Lower My CPC Blog....

Hello and welcome to the lower my cost per click blog.

This blog is about the cost per click aspects of internet marketing - why pay per click, what is a click worth, but more importanly how clicks convert to leads, sales, and new customers.

yermwbxz9k