Social Litmus Tests - Are Agency Executives PH Levels Out Of Balance?
Over time I've had a lot of decent conversation with Olivier Blanchard (@thebrandbuilder) sometimes over even more decent drinks. And we've certainly conversed enough on twitter to the point that I think I understand his point of view and his expertise pretty well and vice versa. Which is to say that I always respect where he is coming from even if I don't always agree. He recently wrote a post on how some large agencies, dealing with large enterprise businesses, are manufacturing roles and backgrounds for social media executives within their organizations. It's a good article. And on the surface of it there really isn't much to disagree with.
Do I think the scenario he describes regarding the "making" of a social media executive occurs? Certainly. I have no argument with that whatsoever. Where I begin to disagree is when he attempts to lay out a litmus test for how one should go about exposing these charlatans (or rather, how to choose a non-charlatan smartly). I think the example criteria *sound* good, I also they think are presumptuous (the criteria, not Olivier). We were having a friendly debate on the topic, but on twitter that becomes not only cumbersome but also floods everyone around us with our inane rantings. So I thought I'd drop my thoughts here instead. Let me explain by simply addressing each of the criteria that were laid out:
- EVERY person worthy of occupying a Director or VP level position in the Social Media, Social Business or Social Communications space has been involved in some sort of social/digital publishing for 3-5+ years - You really shouldn't use words like "every", much less put them in all caps, unless you really and truly believe such a sweeping statement is fact and not generalization. Where does the need for 3-5 years of social/digital publishing come from? Why does publishing something (which to me has zero characteristics of "social") create expertise in leading a large team of people focused on social media? One of the examples used is Seth Godin, yet Seth is one of the least "social" people I know (not personally, Hi Seth!, simply in the context of social media), when is the last time you saw him personally engaged in social *activity*? Isn't interaction the hallmark of "social"? Publishing connotates a one-way process, it is only interactive comments, responses, and dialogs that would make publishing in any way "social". But to my point Seth is also one of the more insightful, highly strategic, people who "get it" that I know.
- Read their blog. What do you find? Crap content just to fill a page 3x per week and provide search engines with carefully chosen keywords, or is the content actually helpful, well researched, shrewdly analyzed and intelligently presented? - So again, a personal blog is a prerequisite? A blog is now "social" by default? I'll reiterate my view that it is not blogging that is "social", it is the interaction (if there is any) that occurs in the sidelines. I feel reasonably certain that I would be much more impressed by someone giving me real examples, of real work, that they had been responsible for than I would by knowing that this person had a blog. Do I care that the newspaper editor cannot write a story as well as their columnist? No. Do I care that the editor is there to make the columnists work *better* and insure that they hit their deadlines? Yes
- Blogging isn’t everything. Lots of people have been blogging for 5+ years but couldn’t manage a Social Media practice if their lives depended on it. Who have they worked with? What have they done? What is their background? What relevant mix of experience do they bring into the role? - Finally, now we're starting to make some sense. So blogging doesn't make a good social media executive by default. I certainly agree there. Hmm, the rest of those criteria look pretty much like the way I would measure *any* role when doing my due diligence. Certainly nothing in there that says I need to be tweeterific or blogalicious. I'm cool with that. Wait, there's more to #3, so let's continue: Note: Though there is no clear path to Social Media management savvy, the individual’s story has to make sense. - This is by far the most salient takeaway. Even though we've been using words like "EVERY" and "EVERYONE" it's now stated that "there is no clear path to Social Media management savvy". I couldn't agree more. But if that's true then why are we trying to assign a litmus test to these folks?
- How do they handle themselves on Social Channels? - The question is whether they need to be handling *themselves* at all. Isn't this about how they handle *clients*? How fluent are they with dos and don’ts of various Social communications platforms? - That's a great question to ask, I'm not sure how you would know the right answers if you are hiring someone to tell you in the first place, but it's still a great question. Have they demonstrated on these channels the ease and fluency that you would expect from someone with real experience under their belt, or are they merely “there,” kind of floundering? - If the question is "have they demonstrated this via client work" then that's fine, if it's whether they as an individual demonstrate it? Who gives a shit. Truly.
- Who outside of the organization and its clients can vouch for them? - I guess the first part of this question is ok, but seems a little crazy to me (when have you tried to track down external references of a *person* within a specific agency you were looking to hire?). I have no idea why the "clients" part is included, to me a client reference of any kind is gold. If you think clients will "cover" for someone they really don't think very highly of you need to think again. That said, you will generally only be handed client references that the agency believes will be positive. But at least you know there *are* positive references of work. Regardless, isn't this also just standard due diligence work that we all do anyway, for any type of function?
- In their initial meetings with you, do they speak more than they listen? - I'm not sure how this differs from evaluating any other type of meeting with any other type of supplier?
- Do they care? This is a simple gut check. If they’re into it, if they are passionate about the space and what you might do together, you’re probably on the right track. - Maybe it's just me, but I have to believe that 99% of those in these roles will have (or at least seem to have) passion...particularly those who jumped over several (possibly important) rungs in the ladder to get their job. Not sure how much stake I'd put in this as a test of ability.
For me, having worked in enterprises and large agencies the problem I have with most of these tests is that they presume these are the most important things to insuring that you will receive quality work. Outside of the ability to generate winning *ideas* do you want to know what's really important in many large agencies? Stuff that is absolutely boring and hidden behind the scenes. Ability to *lead* a team of people and make them better than they'd be without you. Vision, the ability to take a holistic big picture view of not just today but of a predictive nature so that your agency stays ahead of the curve and invests its time in the right shiny objects. A thorough understanding of the various media and tools, however you obtained it. Communication, you must be able to communicate complex concepts and sell them to clients and you must be able to communicate between creative, tech, and business types easily.
You don't have to be a mechanic to be a great race car driver, I personally think it adds a greater depth to the person, but I also know people who don't engage (as a personality) whatsoever in social media but are some of the most insightful people I know. I suppose there is an argument that could be made that too much direct engagement could limit your vision. My point here is that a social media executive at a large agency has a very different set of responsibilities from an independent "expert", many of those responsibilities have little to do with their actual expertise in a particular topic. Most of these tests seemed far more suited to hiring an individual expert to do work for you than they did an agency. I suppose it's no coincidence that the "requirements" tended to look very much like the authors (and most of our own) paths which is why we relate to them. Our world views tend to be defined by our direct experiences, including my own.
There is one litmus test that always works though. Success. Has this person made other clients successful and/or do I believe they will make me successful. That litmus test insures that charlatans who cannot deliver will not last long. You know what they call "charlatans" who *can* deliver? Experts. It's the same reason winners always get to write the history books. A *lot* of the folks that we now consider experts and influencers in the social media space have manufactured backgrounds to some degree. Take a random list of these folks and ask to see the specifics of the actual work they've done in social media for clients and over what period of time. Ask to see their work history, their portfolio and past job titles and try and follow them back in time to see if *their* story makes sense for someone who is going to be advising you in a critical component of your business. It rarely does. In my experience there are far more individuals doing the manufacturing than there are large agencies. So does it occur? I'll assume that it does. Is it something so common that you need to worry about digging up external personal references instead of looking at their work and their ideas? I say no.
Matt Ridings - @techguerilla
0 Comments
Leave a Comment