“Social media experts” are always banging on about “authenticity” and “authentic conversations”. But how authentic are they really?
The mess around Eurostar this weekend reminded me of my favourite “conversation agency”, we are social (who list Eurostar as a client, and are apparently in charge of the brand’s social media strategy). Let’s leave aside the pisspoor job Eurostar and their representatives have done this weekend: Mike Butcher has taken them apart already.
But take a look at we are social’s primary Twitter feed:
Notice that? Yeah, dodgy innit. 186 tweets but nearly 30,000 followers, with about the same number of followees. So what did others think?
Much the same as me, then.
There are two reasons these kind of numbers appear: either we are social paid for Twitter followers using a service like uSocial or someone in the office used a script that automatically follows and unfollows other people to artificially inflate the follower count.
When an individual does this, it’s a bit tragic. But when an agency whose reputation depends on authenticity does it, it’s much worse.
“But @wearesocial is just a feed!” whined Nathan McDonald to me last night. Err, OK, Nathan… why bother faking so many followers then? How is it in any way authentic to inflate your follower numbers using an automated script? Are you really “listening, understanding and engaging in conversations” with 30,000 people?
No, Nick. Neither do I.
What a brilliant wheeze social media is. So many big brands falling over themselves to throw cash at agencies staffed by schoolchildren. Look at we are social’s Who We Are page. Brilliant: every teenager with a Twitter account is a “manager” or an “executive”. (I’m not the only one to have noticed this.) I’ve met several of the people who now work at that agency and haven’t been impressed by one of them.
Social media experts, eh. There aren’t enough bullets.
(Image: Paul Clarke)
Hi Milo
There’s certainly a lot to be learned from the whole Eurostar debacle – however the lessons need to be absorbed by Eurostar’s own comms and customer support teams rather than their elected agencies.
I’ve read Robin’s statement on the We Are Social blog and things are as I suspected. We Are Social’s remit with Eurostar was actually quite narrow. Despite this they did attempt to get information from Eurostar but even train staff were kept ‘in the dark’.
I usually agree with much of what you write but today I think you’ve been slightly unfair to We Are Social. in my experience of them (usually as a competitor), I think that the team there are extremely proactive and professional which is why they have recently won lots of amazing clients.
On the issue of team experience, I really don’t think that this is an issue. We Are Social is not a PR agency so the traditional AE/ AM titles become redundant. In an emerging conversational marketing industry, We Are Social has led the way and have recruited staff who are committed to social media. Some (but not all) may be young, but they know their stuff.
I’m a wee bit worried about the Eurostar situation as my gf’s supposed to be going home to France tomorrow morning for Christmas and I’ll be joining her on Christmas Eve via Eurostar. Fingers crossed and have a good break, fella!
Thanks, Rax.
I agree completely with your first point: this is Eurostar’s mess and Eurostar alone are responsible for clearing it up.
But to concentrate on the substance of my post:
(a) The titles are not redundant precisely because We Are Social has chosen to employ them, thereby implying a level of experience to clients that their staff simply do not possess. It’s bordering on disingenuous.
(b) What’s also disingenuous is the pathetic follower gaming, which might not seem like the biggest deal in the world, but as I said above it’s about authenticity. Faking 30,000 is not only inauthentic, it’s preposterously naive.
(c) We’ll have to agree to disagree regarding our general opinion of the agency. You may rate them. I respect that. But I don’t – and nor do a lot of commenters and tweeters who have called them “chancers”, etc.
(d) I’d also question the whole model of a “conversation” agency. I mean, let’s be frank here: this is just a traditional PR firm (like any good social media outfit) dressed up as something new. At least, I *hope* that’s the case, because if these guys really believe the garbage in their website copy, their clients are in trouble.
These two posts are worth a read, on that point.
http://www.wearevi.com/people-dont-get-behind-conversations-they-get-behind-powerful-ideas.html
http://marketingconversation.com/2008/07/24/the-fallacy-of-community/
(e) And the fact that they’ve won impressive clients doesn’t mean anything.
I’ll stop there, although I have a good deal more to say, because I don’t want this to seem like a personal vendetta. It isn’t: I’m just irritated when I see bad practice from self-appointed “experts”.
Have a great Christmas and best of luck with the trains!
An Account Executive is a normal job title in marketing agencies for graduate level positions. At least in the UK. This might be different in other industries or places, but it would not be unusual in the UK. I think in the US an account ‘executive’ is a somewhat more senior title. Generally account executives or managers would work under an Account Director.
Regarding the number of followers they have on twitter, they have a very high profile within the marketing industry, and love them or hate them they have been at the forefront of the development of specialist ’social media’ companies. most of their tweets link back to articles or case studies they have written, so it would make sense to me that they would have a lot of followers.
I will shave my head if @wearesocial’s follower count is genuine (ie, no script/paid service involved).
Milo, I don’t know what’s your agenda here but I think that’s a little unfair. Firstly because they are probably so busy trying to sort out the situation that they can’t answer all of the posts attacking them right at the minute.
Unfair also because if you had to take down all the Twitterers that had more than 10,000 followers because they can’t read or answer all of the tweets you might as well suppress all of the references and most influencial guys out there! And posting twice a week is kind of reassuring, it means they spend more time twitting for their clients than for themselves. There’s a french saying for this “le cordonnier est toujours le plus mal chaussé”. Litterally it means that the shoe maker is often the one with the most rubbish shoes…
And finally on the age thing, You don’t seem very old either (on this pic at least) and it doesn’t stop you from being a director and hopefully being credible, does it?
[...] In Announcements on January 15, 2010 at 12:35 am I would not be so vain as to imagine that my contributions to the “gaming Twitter followers” debate, nor the post it prompted by Will Heaven from [...]