Nice write up, I didn't make it to Blog World, but was at the Real Time Web Summit…and I also commented yesterday on the same observation. I think the reason for the gap, is that these conferences take lots of $ for companies to participate…those booths you were standing alone cost north of $10k just for the space, so companies need to sell product to make it worthwhile. Also NY is the heart of the media world, so many of the Click Brokers will come to see if they can move product. Finally, and you hit the nail on the head, this is a Web 1.0 conference…10 years ago it was innovative, today it is “All Business”

Insightful. Thx Morgan.

“The people that control the money have yet to make the leap.”
You know, part of this is that the people who advise the people who control the money have yet to make the leap as well. I cannot begin to explain the number of times in the past year I have said to someone with a background of traditional ad agency thinking: “Social Media isn't just digital marketing on someone's social networking platform. Just because you use a tool that can be used by Social Media Marketing doesn't mean that you are *doing* Social Media Marketing. eMail can be used as a SM tool, but it can also be used as a direct marketing tool. The tool doesn't dictate the methodology, it's the other way around.”

Have I been understood when I said that? Mostly, no. I get a nod of the head and “yeah, yeah, yeah, of course!!” and the very next thing that I've heard strategically from the person who agreed so vehemently is essentially the equivalent of the banner ad on Facebook.

I've talked to Marketing people in Fortune 100 companies. When I talk to them, they not only get what I'm saying, they get how big a shift in thinking that is and how it's not going to happen overnight internally in their companies. Additionally though, I've been asked before why none of the agencies they talk to have brought it to them this way? The answer is the same. Those agencies are filled with people who get Ad:tech but don't get BWE. Their also filled with people who are fairly sure that this whole “social media fad” will die off.

Sadly, the money goes where the path of least resistance is.

I think it's a little more nuanced than you state. The large sums of money that exist in the online ad world — and the even larger sums that exist in the ad world overall — do not move into new media overnight. It's invested carefully… and initially by a few real innovators (or risk-takers, if you will).

Last week, some people noted the 15th anniversary of the first banner ads on the Web. Yes, it's taken 15 years for those large sums of money to move as they have to online, and don't forget that TV still exists. So does radio. Print media is undergoing radical change at breakneck speed… but the consumption of these and other media still exists, and in very large amounts. That's why the “safe money” is still being spent there, because there's a history. Social marketing has not yet developed that history that tells buyers other than the innovators and risk takers to move ahead.

Many of these same points were made in the early days of web marketing… only to become prescient thinking as online developed a history and some level of trust.

I prefer to think of it as being ahead of the money. Not that the money and industry is so far behind. Subtle, yet important difference.

Morgan, I admire your passion. However, the very truth you present — that social media creates a new way to “start listening” — also means that social media pretty much stinks as an ad channel. That's why few advertisers with big dollars are making it a focus. Loyalty, engagement and reaching a passionate community are all lofty goals, but they are fuzzy ideals and don't fit into the hard reality of marketing trying to drive results in the next quarter.

I don't write this to denigrate social media, simply to reflect reality. It's been out, popular, for 3+ years, and no advertisers are making it work. Given the efficiency of the free market to throw dollars at anything that works in marketing, the fact that advertisers are not spending big in social media shows you it doesn't. (The comical essays on social media ROI among blogs reveal that even its advocates are confused about how to turn it into marketing results.) For marketing, it's the wrong shoe for the wrong foot. Social media has power among consumers sharing content; it has potential to build new databases of consumer interests; it is a new listening channel to gauge the sentiment of consumers talking about your brand. But it's a bad fit for marketers driving sales, and that's why AdTech is ignoring it.

In my view, social media is like credit cards — a useful tool among consumers that is not a push channel for marketing. Experian can pull data from how I use my card (just as Facebook could learn a lot by how I interact with peers) to build wonderful lists to reach me in other media channels. But my credit card, like Facebook, makes a poor ad channel to push offers back at me. Just because consumers use a new medium doesn't mean it's a fit for two-way marketing.

In a way, this is good … because it will be wonderful if social media remains an unpolluted channel about what users want to share, not what marketers want to push.

Thanks for this post.

Hi John,

Thanks for your comment. I agree. Being among too many “we love non-US traffic” booths and not in enough sessions likely skewed my views. While I agree with you that it's not fair to peg an industry based on one conference I do think that there are several telling signs that point to the fact that social is relegated to adjunct status. And I'm not here as an apologist for social media. I don't believe it's a panacea that is going to “save” online advertising, but I do think that some of the signs that I alluded to above point to a general mindset that puts social media behind old media measures – mainly traffic and eyeballs.

I've spent about 10 years in online marketing and I know that there are many important pieces of the online puzzle, and that social is an important, growing part; but it is just one part. It also has many challenges articulated well by many smart people. But what I found a bit surprising was the fact that people in the industry, who are at ad:tech are not using the new technologies in a way that seems to suggest that either they embrace them, are trying to learn them, or leveraging their core abilities. This was the part that was concerning.

Again, small sample size – me on the trade show floor and a few panels does not give an accurate overview of where social stands in the industry as a whole. More just my observations compared to my experiences at other conferences.

Hi Mana,

I think they're aware of the benefits, but I think the bigger problem for them as an industry is that social media doesn't scale well. They need to reach mass numbers of people that the social channels don't allow for. So they need to find ways to reach customers and, yes, interrupt them, to get their message out. It's what their clients pay them for. Until they can figure out a way to scale the online audience in a way that in total reaches an aggregate in the ballpark of offline they will be forced to think of social as just one element of a plan, as opposed to a leading role.

Thanks for reading!

Adrian – Thanks for the comment. It's great that ad:tech is about monetization. It has to be. Social media has some fairly well documented cases of ROI. Dell, Pizza Hut, Dairy Queen, Ford and others will be more than happy to attest to the value of the channel. Social media marketing is about monetization. It's just a different metric. It's not CPC and CPA, it's LTV. Lifetime value of a customer is critical and social media helps drive that number up and up.

I agree that people don't have it figured out, but isn't that what the future is all about? Figuring out tough problems and new ways of doing things?

What if, in 1994 I asked you what the ROI of a Web site is? How ridiculous is that question now? I believe we'll look back and say the same thing about social media marketing and shifting ways of reaching customers and how customers buy from businesses.

So my argument would be that while we have to keep doing the things that are working, we have to see, experiment and understand the shifts that are occurring in the space as well. I thought that spirit was missing from the show.

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your comments. As you probably could guess I have a slightly different take on things; but in general my post was less about “why aren't marketers spending more money” in social media, it was more why aren't people spending more attention and effort looking for ways to make the channel work for them? In part, it may have been poor expectations on my part. I was looking to ad:tech for inspiration and innovation. Instead I found out about a lot of companies that can sell me traffic. Good to know I suppose, but not as fulling as inspiration.

Secondly, it felt more like an attitude about social media as a fad or bolt-on tactic rather than an important area to innovate and that was worrying. I think there are fundamental shifts in consumer behavior underway and to think of them as fads or as something not to worry about yet reeks of complacency. We can ask the newspaper and radio about how that tends to work out.

In terms of the channel itself as a marketing effort I agree with you that as it stands RIGHT NOW it's not proven as an effective advertising channel. But that's how most of these things start, right? I mean if we went back to 1994 and had a conversation around Web sites the argument is eerily similar. Further, there is a big difference between advertising and marketing. I think social does a good job of marketing a company – it's the advertising that isn't realized.

But just because it hasn't been figured out yet doesn't mean that it isn't worth figuring out. Because social media provides the opportunity for a new type of metric for advertisers. Lifetime value of a customer. Advertisers on the web are so focused on CPM, CPC and CPA. And those metrics haven't translated well to the social space. But I believe that LTV will become more important, and social will help tremendously in that regard.

Finally, I agree that social is just one aspect of any successful marketing campaign and would never advocate that brands and agencies stop spending on what's working to place big bets in untried areas. But the general attitude that social is a fad, that social doesn't work is a dangerous mindset. After the dotcom bust everyone said “see, ecommerce doesn't work on the web” they were right in 2000, they look foolish now. I just hope that at these types of conferences we get more of a push forward and a look to what can be, not simply what is.

Sorry for the rambling nature of this comment, but I wanted to respond and there's a lot of ground to cover in your comment. I'll try to address more of my thinking in future posts. Thanks for the thoughtful response.

I agree absolutely. But the difference is in the level of risk. Adtech is about monetization right now through proven things that work. Blogworld carries a massive amount of risk and the monetization isn't clear yet — and keep in mind, it might not happen very well.

Hi John,

Thanks for your comment. I agree. Being among too many “we love non-US traffic” booths and not in enough sessions likely skewed my views. While I agree with you that it's not fair to peg an industry based on one conference I do think that there are several telling signs that point to the fact that social is relegated to adjunct status. And I'm not here as an apologist for social media. I don't believe it's a panacea that is going to “save” online advertising, but I do think that some of the signs that I alluded to above point to a general mindset that puts social media behind old media measures – mainly traffic and eyeballs.

I've spent about 10 years in online marketing and I know that there are many important pieces of the online puzzle, and that social is an important, growing part; but it is just one part. It also has many challenges articulated well by many smart people. But what I found a bit surprising was the fact that people in the industry, who are at ad:tech are not using the new technologies in a way that seems to suggest that either they embrace them, are trying to learn them, or leveraging their core abilities. This was the part that was concerning.

Again, small sample size – me on the trade show floor and a few panels does not give an accurate overview of where social stands in the industry as a whole. More just my observations compared to my experiences at other conferences.

Hi Mana,

I think they're aware of the benefits, but I think the bigger problem for them as an industry is that social media doesn't scale well. They need to reach mass numbers of people that the social channels don't allow for. So they need to find ways to reach customers and, yes, interrupt them, to get their message out. It's what their clients pay them for. Until they can figure out a way to scale the online audience in a way that in total reaches an aggregate in the ballpark of offline they will be forced to think of social as just one element of a plan, as opposed to a leading role.

Thanks for reading!

Adrian – Thanks for the comment. It's great that ad:tech is about monetization. It has to be. Social media has some fairly well documented cases of ROI. Dell, Pizza Hut, Dairy Queen, Ford and others will be more than happy to attest to the value of the channel. Social media marketing is about monetization. It's just a different metric. It's not CPC and CPA, it's LTV. Lifetime value of a customer is critical and social media helps drive that number up and up.

I agree that people don't have it figured out, but isn't that what the future is all about? Figuring out tough problems and new ways of doing things?

What if, in 1994 I asked you what the ROI of a Web site is? How ridiculous is that question now? I believe we'll look back and say the same thing about social media marketing and shifting ways of reaching customers and how customers buy from businesses.

So my argument would be that while we have to keep doing the things that are working, we have to see, experiment and understand the shifts that are occurring in the space as well. I thought that spirit was missing from the show.

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your comments. As you probably could guess I have a slightly different take on things; but in general my post was less about “why aren't marketers spending more money” in social media, it was more why aren't people spending more attention and effort looking for ways to make the channel work for them? In part, it may have been poor expectations on my part. I was looking to ad:tech for inspiration and innovation. Instead I found out about a lot of companies that can sell me traffic. Good to know I suppose, but not as fulling as inspiration.

Secondly, it felt more like an attitude about social media as a fad or bolt-on tactic rather than an important area to innovate and that was worrying. I think there are fundamental shifts in consumer behavior underway and to think of them as fads or as something not to worry about yet reeks of complacency. We can ask the newspaper and radio about how that tends to work out.

In terms of the channel itself as a marketing effort I agree with you that as it stands RIGHT NOW it's not proven as an effective advertising channel. But that's how most of these things start, right? I mean if we went back to 1994 and had a conversation around Web sites the argument is eerily similar. Further, there is a big difference between advertising and marketing. I think social does a good job of marketing a company – it's the advertising that isn't realized.

But just because it hasn't been figured out yet doesn't mean that it isn't worth figuring out. Because social media provides the opportunity for a new type of metric for advertisers. Lifetime value of a customer. Advertisers on the web are so focused on CPM, CPC and CPA. And those metrics haven't translated well to the social space. But I believe that LTV will become more important, and social will help tremendously in that regard.

Finally, I agree that social is just one aspect of any successful marketing campaign and would never advocate that brands and agencies stop spending on what's working to place big bets in untried areas. But the general attitude that social is a fad, that social doesn't work is a dangerous mindset. After the dotcom bust everyone said “see, ecommerce doesn't work on the web” they were right in 2000, they look foolish now. I just hope that at these types of conferences we get more of a push forward and a look to what can be, not simply what is.

Sorry for the rambling nature of this comment, but I wanted to respond and there's a lot of ground to cover in your comment. I'll try to address more of my thinking in future posts. Thanks for the thoughtful response.

I agree absolutely. But the difference is in the level of risk. Adtech is about monetization right now through proven things that work. Blogworld carries a massive amount of risk and the monetization isn't clear yet — and keep in mind, it might not happen very well.