It’s like Stockholm Syndrome, but especially for social media. What happens is that a company, brand or organisation becomes aware of social media – either from within (generally the rot starts in IT) or from without, via the snake-oil salesmen des nos jours, the self-styled social media gurus.
The background noise becomes a barrage, once aware of social media, you cannot simply ignore it – it’s like hives – and before you know it, you’re a hostage to the phenomenon. No part of your business is immune to the lure of the Shiny Object – no department is without its social media evangelist. It’s particularly bad in marketing-led organisations, riven (as they are) with insecurities and staffed by those who cannot be left behind and are possessed of a spectacular herd mentality.
Eventually, while you have to give credit to the decision makers in any organisation, who will understand that they are being coerced and will see the unhealthy nature of the relationship, the company, brand or business learns to love its oppressor.
And that’s when Pepsi removed the $20m from its sponsorship of the Super Bowl and decided to plough it into social media.
I came across this blog, by a lady called Christine Hueber. Because I know that you, dear blog snorkellers, are inherently lazy, and won’t click on the link (even if it were to save your life), I reproduce it here in full:
“Pepsi: Social Media $20 Million — Super Bowl $0
LinkedIn was the initial source for me of this wonderful news: Pepsi is spending $20 million on Social Media instead of Super Bowl advertising!
What do you think this news means for Social Media?
Engaging Social Media Relationship Marketing with Results!
+1 530.582.8091 Direct”
What does this mean for social media? Nothing. What does it mean for Pepsi? That they’ve completely lost the plot.