Somewhere along the way, marketing people like us decided we couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time -- that there is something inherently different and distinct about writing copy for a :30 second spot vs. writing copy for a direct mail solicitation letter. Worse, we started believing a myth that one individual can't think in "TV" and in "the web" or in video or social media -- that each of those are somehow extreme specialties like brain surgery vs. dermatology. The Obama campaign proved that thinking wrong. It was "wholistic" marketing. While, no doubt, the greatest amount of money was spent on TV, there was never a sense that TV was "driving" the campaign and everything else was supporting it. Each medium used -- including media not even around when the campaign began (iPhone Apps and Twitter, for example) -- was utilized with the same intensity and priority and treated, not like an "extension" of the paid-media campaign, but as a critical component to the overall "brand" that, to at least some supporters, was more important than all of the other activities of the campaign
Social Media is one of the tools, not the only one and not always the most important but one that should be kept in mind and properly used. - post by filibertoselvas
In the past, the terms "viral" and "grassroots" and "user-generated" seemed to indicate that a marketing effort was less expensive than traditional media -- or, more naively, free. Yet the Obama campaign invested tens of millions into providing the "movement" the tools necessary for it to grow and flourish. If you were to show me a startup business that, in two years, could build a database of 3+ million individuals who will contribute more than $200 each online, I'd show you a startup ready to go public with a multi-billion dollar valuation.
Social Media does not equal cheap advertisement; but does equal valuable customer relationships... (if properly implemented) - post by filibertoselvas
Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.