The B. J. Mendelson Theory

I saw a great interview on CNN this week, and it really struck a chord with me.

The interview was with B. J. Mendelson, and his new book is entitled

“Social Media is Bull Shit”.

The title, obviously, is designed to get noticed, and he has been getting a lot of press. I found a more extensive interview on Tech Crunch (link included at bottom of post), and then I spent some time on his website. What he has to say is of direct relevance to small business owners, and I want to share it with you here.

Mendelson is primarily known as a comedian, and he has made good use to social media over the years to promote himself and his favorite causes. One unique fact about Mendelson is that, although he has these negative things to say about social media, he has 770,000 Twitter followers. (The Tech Crunch interview explains how that happened.)

So, Why does he think that Social Media is B. S.?

Actually, he doesn't disparage the various social media components as communications tools. He is attacking the myth that social media platforms can be used to make people successful, well-known, and rich.

This myth is perpetuated by the media (it kind of feeds on itself) and, most importantly, the large number of marketers promoting themselves as Social Media Specialists. These are the people that convince small business owners, artists, writers, musicians, etc., that they can make a huge splash just by adroitly manipulating social media. Using some more salty language, Mendelson refers to this process as the “Asshole Based Economy.”

His personal experience, and that of many others that he interviewed for the book, is that social media is unable to build a reputation and won't create a fan base. For most of the people listed above, it is just a waste of time. And if you add in a consultant, it becomes an expensive waste of time.

Why does a guy with 770,000 twitter followers think it is a waste of time?

His main points are these:

• If you are already known in RL, then social media is a great way to stay in touch with your “fan base”.
  
• Much of the activity on Twitter, for example, is from celebrities, comedians, and journalists. These people developed their following in real life, before moving to Twitter.
  
• You can get Twitter followers and Facebook connections, but most of those people won't actually engage with you, buy your books or records, or go to your events. If you aren't already famous and worth knowing, social media won't make you so.

Practical Tip of the Day:

• If you aren't a major “name”, don't accept a marketing plan that claims it will turn you into a big social media presence overnight.
  
• It's your real life, analog activities that will build your reputation and your audience. You have to first develop this audience before digital communication platforms can be of much use.
  
• If you do have a customer list / subscriber base that is interested in hearing from you, give them valuable content. Not just what's on sale this month. 
•  

You can see the TechCrunch interview with Mendelson HERE.

Recent Advertising Stories that Caught my Interest

Two recent stories from the world of advertising caught my eye, and led to some questions which I will share with you.

1.) GM vs Facebook

Facebook has gotten a lot of press lately for its IPO and the aftermath. However, the Facebook story that interested me most occurred a few days prior to the IPO. According to the Wall Street Journal, General Motors will stop advertising on Facebook, after deciding that paid ads on the site have little impact on consumers' car purchases. They will maintain their Facebook pages and will continue working with other social media, but will discontinue its $10 million advertising buy.

Admittedly, this is pretty small potatoes in GM's overall advertising budget, but it may say something about using social media for commercial purposes. Obviously, with 800+ million users worldwide, and over 50% of North Americans using the service, those GM ads were getting a lot of views.

However, this large number of views didn't seem to be getting results for GM. In fact, I read recently that less than 5% of social media users regularly depend on those sites for purchasing recommendations.

Three things may be at play here:

• Type of Product – social media users may be more likely to respond to the opinions of the crowd, or their friends, when the risk is low. If you go to a new restaurant that has a lot of social hype and then find you are disappointed, your loss is pretty minimal. If, however, you buy a car that you end up not liking, the costs are obviously much higher.
  
  
• Age Group Attitudes – heavy social media users are likely to be under 30, which may not be the prime target for purchasing high-profit new cars.
  
  
•  Level of Engagement – After the GM announcement, Ford stated that they were pleased with the response to their Facebook ads, and were continuing their investment. Ford may have a more creative approach to its social media ads and a more comprehensive engagement process after you hit the Like button.

While its not precisely clear what's going on here, it is obvious that there will be a steep learning curve for most businesses before they turn social media into an effective marketing vehicle.


2.) Harry's Law vs the Tyranny of the Ratings

I have been a faithful viewer of Harry's Law (NBC) over its first, and last, two seasons. First on Wednesday nights, and then on Sunday, this was my “must see” show of the evening. Set in Cincinnati, the show starred Kathy Bates as lawyer Harriet Korn, and Christopher McDonald as the over-the-top Fieger-esque Tommy Jefferson. The show had great characters, solid scripts, and unique plot twists. It also got canceled after two seasons, even with decent ratings.

Yes, Harry's Law had decent overall ratings (rather unique for NBC), but it got canceled anyway. Why? Here's a quote from the TV By The Numbers website:

“Will the Harry's Law cancellation convince the doubters that total viewership is completely meaningless in broadcast primetime? A network's top total viewership show (but nearly lowest adults 18-49 rated show) was canceled. Doesn't get any more definitive than that.”

Yes, The show had a lot of great things going for it, but it wasn't “young” enough. But this isn't just a rant from an Old Fogey about how the youngsters are killing all of the valuable culture in our society. (I'll save that for some future blog.) This is merely a statement of my confusion on the subject.

Here is a quiz for you: What do the following advertised products have in common?

• Cialis and Viagra
• Knee replacements
• Faulty knee replacement law suits
• Walk-in tubs
• Ensure nutritional drinks
• The Owl magnifier
• Computer keyboards with oversized keys
• Arthritis medications
• Hoveround powered wheelchairs
• Depends undergarments

I am sure you see the pattern:  
These products aren't being pitched to youngsters!!!

The target audience for many of these products is over 60. Wouldn't a show like Harry's Law be a perfect vehicle for these companies? So why did it get canceled?

There may be some esoteric logic here that can only be discerned by all-knowing network executives, but it is beyond me.