Hard evidence of social media's failings


You probably missed the ’Digital Life’ report from TNS that came out last week. Despite a major PR push from its authors, it barely made a dent in the Twittersphere or across traditional marketing and media channels. Which is odd when you consider that even the slightest news about social media usually garners a huge response in the marketing world. A small company launches a new app and headlines start flashing. A senior marketer announces a major investment in Facebook and 5,000 tweets are launched.

So one might expect that the biggest piece of empirical research ever conducted on consumers’ digital behaviour and their attitudes to social media from the world’s biggest market research company would create quite a lot of buzz. After all, 72,000 consumers interviewed across 60 countries is quite a sample. Yet coverage of the report and its key findings was almost non-existent. Blink and you missed it.

One look inside the Digital Life report, however, explains the lack of attention. Unlike the overly optimistic and wildly out of touch proclamations of the social media industry and those that cover it, the TNS study was based on empirical data. And as a result, it presented a much more even-handed and objective view of the digital landscape than most marketers are comfortable accepting or forwarding to their peers.

For example, the report concludes that the majority of consumers in developed markets do not want to engage with brands via social media. In the UK, that proportion was at its highest with 61% of consumers stating they do not see social media as a place they want to interact with brands. That’s a bummer for every brand manager who spouts the usual crap about “having a conversation with the consumer”, because almost two-thirds of their consumers aren’t interested in talking to them.

The research also reveals that just a quarter of consumers in developed markets see social networks as a place to buy products. Again, that’s a blow both to those who have boldly predicted the commercialisation of social media as a retail space and to the likes of Facebook and Twitter, whose long-term business projections partly depend on monetising their impact on consumers.

But these facts and many more were probably not communicated to you because they do not fit the ideology that the marketing industry is attempting to propagate when it comes to social media. Like the Chinese government - which steadfastly refuses to describe Tibet as anything other than a part of China and which rarely covers any of the public outrages that take place there - the hegemonic forces of marketing prefer to tell a story of new apps and bold Facebook strategies rather than a more fair approach.


To the credit of TNS, it did just that in its report last week, and there was much to celebrate about the potential of digital as a vitally important medium for the people of the 21st century. But what also emerged from the data was clear evidence of the lack of credibility or engagement that most brands can expect from their forays into social media. As TNS chief development officer Matthew Froggatt put it: “Many brands have recognised the vast potential audiences available to them on social networks; however, they are failing to understand that these spaces belong to the consumer and brand presence needs to be proportionate and justified.”

Bravo Mr Froggatt! Wise is the marketer who uses data to assess the situation. And he has a point, does he not? In all the hullabaloo, has anyone considered that the term social media has no place for brands within its definition? ’Social media’ literally means the communication channels that exist between people. Not between brands.

But like every medium before it, brands try to invade that space anyway. And social media, like every other medium before it, is already suffering from clutter as a result. As more brands attempt to grab attention and start social media conversations with disinterested consumers, more of them will switch off. That’s probably why the sample in developing countries in the TNS research were more positive about brands on social media those in developed markets - they have yet to be switched off.

And clutter - as marketers should know from experience - does not eventually subside. The response of marketers to a cluttered media is to produce more clutter. As TNS notes: “Misguided digital strategies are generating mountains of digital waste, from friendless Facebook accounts to blogs no one reads”. The stark message from the TNS data is clear: it’s already hard to communicate with consumers via social media and it will only get harder as time goes on and more brands pile in.

The overall message from the TNS report is not one of complete hopelessness but of practical reality. Digital communications, and social media within it, is a genuinely world-changing development. But for those marketers who ’drank the Kool-Aid’ and spent all their money and attention on using it as their main communications focus, there’s a disappointing denouement ahead.

Mark Ritson is an associate professor of marketing, an award winning columnist, and a consultant to some of the world’s biggest brands

Readers' comments (21)

  • I'm not sure it wasn't covered Mark. I covered the report on my blog a good fortnight ago (http://www.adigaskell.org/blog/2011/11/10/does-advertising-on-facebook-really-work/), and the Guardian also reported on it (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/10/uk-facebook-twitter-brands-marketing?newsfeed=true)

    Overlooking that though, I think the message is clear that people don't want to be sold to via social media. They go there for engaging content, not for adverts. Most big brands haven't twigged that yet, hence why so many social media efforts see very poor engagement stats.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Adi Gaskell made the same point we did in our blog when we too covered the topic last week. (http://www.mediameasurement.com/?p=1965)
    The problem is that too many companies get obsessed with broadcasting their message and forget that it takes tact to succeed in social media. Is it any wonder consumers are switching off to the constant flow of noise that brands throw at them?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Interesting data, but I'm not sure about the interpretation. I don't think it's so much that companies shouldn't use social networks as a way to get their message out, just that they're doing it all WRONG.

    Marketing through social networks isn't an extension of your traditional marketing efforts and really requires a change in your whole paradigm.

    Your comments stimulated a post about how businesses have it all wrong and what they should do to be more successful in their social media efforts. You can read it here: http://hausmanmarketresearch.org/dont-social-media-marketing

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • yep, most brands and services are utterly clueless. They either appoint interns to run the ship or it's orchestrated by suit clad morons who love the word 'synergy'. So far, it's small brands and niche markets that are executing social initiatives with a slice of finesse. On the flip side, you find heavyweights like M&S throwing everything at X factor and utterly buggering it up for anyone else... as for the 'report' moaning mark, they interviewed less than 2000 Brits and didn't tell us anything about their demographics or the conditions of the interview and phrasing of questions. There's what, 55M in the UK? Go figure. We also read it on the day of its release. If we're all so 'switched off' then why does the average person have some 50 liked pages. Tell Burberry that everyone is 'switched off', see what they say. have to hand it to you, your articles stir up debate, shame you come out looking ridiculous. P.S. nice suit.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Incorporating brands as part of normal consumer behavior and as part of natural extension of the consumer behavior is a prudent way to go.

    The mad rush behind 'likes' is unsustainable and perhaps even dilutes the brand positioning rather than strengthening.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Second the opinion above: it's not that brands shouldn't be on SNS, it's that they shouldn't be doing marketing so much as participating in the conversation.
    When a brand is there and reacts to (potential) consumers having questions, complaints, expressing interest..., it would just be a part of the conversation; if it listens and replies in helpful ways, it would probably be accepted, even if more were then (e.g. commenting on blog posts to bring in some internal perspective).

    Not doing social media marketing campaigns but making the company more social - in terms of its consisting of people who hopefully like their own products, and in terms of CSR/influence in the world - would be a step towards becoming such a conversation partner and a brand worthy of having people talk about it.

    Who apart from dedicated social business start-ups has the courage (or no other way) than doing that, though?

    More thoughts here: http://www.zhangschmidt.com/tag/brand-communications/

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "there's a confusion in this between channels and messages. just because the messages commonly used aren't working doesn't mean the channel isn't working! media is media and fixed across brands; communication across media is the variable that determines success vs. failure -"

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I +1 and Liked this article. Wait... does that mean I really like it. Bugger where is the -1 button.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "’Social media’ literally means the communication channels that exist between people. Not between brands."

    This is essentially the same point that Sir Martin Sorrell made about Facebook a few months ago.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "The reason why the survey didn't get wide recognition is that when you drill into the data it is evident that they made some rather wild claims. For example 61% of 2k Britons surveyed can not seriously be considered indicative of the sentiment of all the social media users in that country when Facebook alone has 30.5m UK subscribers"

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page

Have your say


Related images

Job of the Week

Top Jobs


+media Facebook Twitter LinkedIn