This industry (yes, industry) is just getting started. It may not be fully walking upright yet, but it’s addressing some pretty big issues such as how to effectively reach an audience that has migrated from destination sites and is numb to traditional advertising.

I certainly wouldn’t have judged the potential of website publishing based on the first “brochure ware” sites that were rolled out.

Stay tuned.

One, depth of engagement with audiences. “Poke” applications, for example, are lots of fun; but I suspect the fun lasts for about an afternoon before the user moves on to something new, never forming a meaningful relationship with the application. If I’m right, these applications will remain widgets, not publications, in the eyes of marketers.

Two, depth of connection between consumers of social media and the brands that want to advertise to them. The ad format must evolve to match these new environments. Radio ads don’t work on TV, and ads designed for news websites aren’t working in social-content environments. The recent campaigns in Facebook’s Graffiti by BMW, Intel, Dell and Jones Soda are examples — in my highly biased opinion, FM sells sponsorships for Graffiti — of high-value social-media advertising. They are high-value to the Graffiti community because both the concepts *and* the formats are relevant to them, and high levels of participation prove the relevance is real. They’re also high-value to the sponsors, given the CPMs they are paying and the rate at which they are renewing.

Could I ever set you up for an interview with Graffiti’s Mark Kantor?

Consumers have deep and abiding relationships with products, thanks to the brands that bring those products to market. The producers of mustards certainly want relationships with consumers, starting with “brand loyalty.”

Why the red herring? Perhaps because he has no idea how to make products relevant beyond a 30 sec spot. Besides, he certainly understands that free online widgets are not going to pay the bills ad agencies on Madison Ave. From that perspective it’s better to dis the whole concept of widgets lest producers discover that widgets might be far more cost-effective than ads at building relationships.

Is the current crop of widgets the answer? Not really. They’re too shallow. But as they evolve they can become significantly richer. Eventually, they’ll exist as personal brand applications running on one’s iPhone or equivalent, a personal, portable and persistent means of sustaining brand relationships. Col. Mustard will be there, as will Grey Poupon.

The conversational and personalized nature of social media argues strongly that it will grow in importance as media. Eyeballs and content will continue to migrate there. Advertisers will need to innovate.

While I agree that not much innovation around advertising via social media has occurred yet, there are examples and there are likely opportunities worth short-term exploration.

It will be an interesting discussion and development to watch how this innovation takes place. My own thoughts on how this might work are here: http://jeremiahsjamison.wordpr.....l-mustard/

The problem for traditional media is that they sell the same “proven” interruptive ad design concepts to their clients and the campaigns flop so they write off social network advertising.

That model is dead. People don’t go on to social media sites to be interrupted.

I agree that sheep tossing and vampire biting is so ‘07.

A few social media savvy marketers have figured it out and are making a killing via apps and regular social ads. (Ref: FacebookPayday.com)

I agree that social ads to date aren’t fairing to well. But the truth is that they will have to come around at some point.

In social media, people are media. While it’s great to imagine that a brand can insert itself into a conversation, it doesn’t actually work that way. Not to be overly naive, but brands have to be invited in.

Imagine a person watching television as a conversation between a person and a publisher. In this case the publisher invites in the advertisement, so the person watching can accept this. Imagine a using a search engine as a conversation between a person and Google. In this case Google invites into the conversation the appropriate advertiser, so the person searching can accept this. Now, imagine social media as a conversation between two people. How does advertising exist without being brought in by one of the parties?

Advertising used to be simply about how many people you could get to see your message, now with social media advertising is about how many people you can get to share your message. Achieving this doesn’t mean getting in bed with Colonel Mustard, although I am sure he is right for some lucky lady, but it does mean finding a reason why people would chose to bring mustard with them to the party.

Here’s the good news; you might not need as much reach in social media as you did in traditional media, because with social media you have the opportunity to cut down on waste and increase the overall efficacy of your marketing efforts. Although, as I wrote (http://blogs.mediapost.com/spin/?p=1313) marketers seem to love waste. Big product companies can get the love they need, think Soap Operas, but the social media version. Producing content, or widgets, that people enjoy to get their message out there. Better yet, having their agencies tasked with building content people will want to share. It really makes everything better (and social media advertising starts to make sense) when people start to think of advertising as a benefit instead of a necessary evil.

Thanks for the great post Kara! I am a huge fan.

Best,
Joe