Is the glass half full or half empty? Who cares if it contains 18-year old Scotch!

I was just interviewed for a piece which appeared on Ragan.com talking about the economically-influenced alleged decline of social media. The piece cites a recent Wall Street Journal (say it isn't so, Emily!) article that talks about marketers cutting budgets on alternative/experimental media. I couldn't access the article (is the WSJ still sticking to their premium priced walled garden?) but if Chrysler is the beacon of marketing leadership, I guess I won't cash in my crayon options any time soon.

I don't want to sound like (or be labeled) a booster (and if you know me, you know I hate the terms "web 2.0" and even "social media"), but seriosuly, are we even going to go down this path again? The same path where we poo-pooed the 1.0 bubble only to be caught with our pants down. Seriously people....it's not about the technology and it's not about the V.C.'s; it's about the people damnit.

Ask Ruprecht Murdoch (the same dude who just hoping that pesky Internet thingy would just blow over) where he thinks the real challenges lie...the declines right now are happening, NOT in the emerging spaces, but rather in the incumbent categories. Take a listen to my conversation with John Gerzema, author of "The Brand Bubble" if you need convincing as to where the real declines are/will continue to be.

In other words, trying to debate or mitigate the rise of UNARGUABLY the most game-changing consumer, techology and behavior changes in our lifetimes is insane and inane. 

“When the going gets tough, you’ve got two types of [communicators]: those that will cut the experimental budgets … and those who now more than ever will be prepared to invest forward,” Jaffe said. “My advice is to take that path forward.”

That takes care of the WHAT and for the record, I haven't run into a single senior marketing executive that DOESN'T fundamentally buy into and believe in the transformational potential and impact associated with community, dialogue and partnership.

If that is in fact the case, perhaps we should be talking about the HOW. I guess the real issue is whether we're talking about "social media" as window dressing, executional tactics or in fact....a strategic, organizational or cultural imperative.

The other point is whether we're talking about implementing experiments to emulate or replicate push-based, intrusive, scaled communication AKA advertising.

It's way more fragmented that a binary 1 or 0 when it comes to marketers who "get it" and those "who don't". For this exercise, let's assume 50% of marketers are spending and 50% aren't (hence a glass half full and a glass half empty metaphor) In reality, given current spending levels i.e. % of budget on social media (is it even as high as 3%) or the number of Fortune 500 companies engaging in direct conversation (blogs) with their customers (15%), the base is significantly smaller.

And of those that are spending on "social media" 'cuz that's what the C-suite are mandating needs to happen, are either:

1. Looking at it tactically, executionally, as a short term cure-all, as a ROI generator, as a replaced to advertising....or all of the above
2. Looking at it strategically and as a potential game-changing commitment

I'd probably take an educated guess that the split between the two is around 80:20.

Now here's where it gets interesting. Brands are either going to employ the services of specialist boutiques OR they're looking towards their existing agencies (both traditional and digital) to come up with a recommended solution and executional plan for social media.

Again, I'd probably estimate an 80:20 split IN FAVOR of the existing agency versus specialist boutique. I'm started to notice a definite uptick in incumbent agencies making a play for this social media imperative...and increasingly BLOCKING any challenger consultancies or agencies trying to make a bid for the category.

Of course there are those agencies that recognizing their own limitations and in turn, outsourcing or partnering with the same/said boutiques. For sake of argument, let's say the split is once again 80:20 in favor of the mine, mine, mine approach.

So do the math, we're talking about 4 out of every 100 marketers/brands investing in "joining the conversation" as a cultural/organizational/strategic imperative AND working with a specialist consultancy/agency either directly (2) or indirectly through their agency (1.6)

Fortunately for those 4, they are all crayon clients :)

What have your experiences been with with respect to selling through and/or implementing against joining the conversation?

I've implicitly made the cliched assumption that incumbent agencies (traditional or digital) are not equipped to deliver against conversational marketing. Do you agree or disagree?

What percentages would you apply against my breakdowns?

Bottom line brothers and sisters, you're either a leader or a follower and the split is - when all is said and done - about 97:3 (historically and anecdotally). Which bucket is yours?