Is Social Media Counter Intuitive to Communications Media? If so, do you need a different approach to planning?

Slide  9 & 10 from "What's Next In Media?" by Neil Perkin

This week we've been working on the "Strategic Social Media" module for the WeMedia project.  I've been looking at the future of journalism threads which lead me to "What's Next In Media" slideshow by Neil Perkin and I just haven't gotten past slides 9 (the post title) and 10 (above).  I realize this slideshow is directed to an audience of traditional media-makers, but wonder if any of these points are important for a nonprofit to consider when thinking about integrating social media. 

In other words, how can your organization's social media strategy co-exist, support, enhance, or dovetail with your Internet marketing communications plan?   They're different animals, aren't they?   But is one a shark and the other a guppy?  How can they co-exist?

And, do they require different approaches to planning?  This is resonating with what I just read in the Facebook Activism Guide by Dan Schultz.

The general model for an activism campaign is:  reflect-plan-act-reflect-plan-act and this works for Facebook Activism.

It the same thing that David Armano is talking about in this post:

The "social revolution" is real, transformational and not going away. However, we need to proceed with a little caution.  Not every tactic requires "conversation".  Marketers need an intimate understanding of how social networks actually function and what is has to do with their business and brands.  Then, we need to try a few things and learn by doing.

I used to call it learning by doing and screwing up and adjusting. 

We know there are different approaches to strategic planning. I think the one that matches Facebook activism best is the organic or self-organizing approach (see Margaret Wheatly's essay The Unplanned Organization)

Another view of planning is similar to the development of an organism, i.e., an “organic,” self-organizing process. Certain cultures, e.g., Native American Indians, might prefer unfolding and naturalistic “organic” planning processes more than the traditional mechanistic, linear processes. Self-organizing requires continual reference to common values, dialoguing around these values, and continued shared reflection around the systems current processes.

This lead to ask, "What type of planning style do you think works best for social media or web2.0 efforts?"

In the comments, Maddie Grant noted the concept of agile planning, modified to suit non-profits or associations (here and here):

It boils down to beta testing everything, where the possibility of "failure" is factored into every strategic decision so that adjustments can be made quickly and seamlessly as part of the process. I think for social media strategy, it's crucial to have this kind of thinking as core to the planning, because you really don't know (despite what your goals might be) how the social sphere will engage with your efforts - but it's so flexible, by nature, that you can hopefully roll with the tide and adjust your specific projects as you go along

This is a point made recently in a slide by David Armano on "10 Ways Digital Can Help You Thrive in A Recession."  The first is "Live By the Rules in A Beta Economy".  Or has Kath says "throw spaghetti on the wall and see what sticks" attitude is important in exploring new terrain with new audiences.

What do you think?

Comments

[Scarlett Swerdlow]

The item on the slide that resonates most with me is "One Way: Delivering a Message" versus "Two Way: Being Part of a Conversation." In my mind, this is how I most commonly distinguish traditional communications tools from social media tools.

For example, our e-newsletter is a traditional communications tool (even though it's Internet-based) because it's about us delivering a message. If we were to take more or less the same content from our e-newsletter and throw it up on a blog, then we'd be in the realm of social media, assuming we had an active and vibrant community around our blog.

Communications goals that involve participation, activation, strengthening, etc., are ripe for social media tools because those are two-way communication goals.

We definitely have two-way communication goals - we're a grassroots-based organization, after all - but there are also times when we just want to get our message out with controlled frames and messaging. That's when we turn to more traditional tools like LTEs, Op-Eds, editorials, press advisories and releases, newsletters, research publications, etc.

Sometime I think we use traditional tools when social media would be more appropriate, like many of our toolkits and guidebooks, but social media adoption doesn't happen over night : )