(Hilary Gifford)

It was truly a privilege for me to be in the midst of so many brilliant contributors to a fascinating discussion at the Social Media Marketing Symposium. Observing the manner in which academic opinions meshed with industry executives' thoughts showed that these types of discussions are invaluable in such a new and dynamic field. It seems to me that engaging the vast array of perspectives in a discussion is the best way to find solutions that are most likely to be beneficial for businesses and consumers alike.

Some of the themes that got a good deal of attention at the symposium are those which, though very important, are already well known in the field of marketing in social media. Topics such as the endurance of basic social needs, consumer empowerment, engagement, and "joining the conversation" were highlighted as some of the fundamental elements marketers must understand in the process of bringing their brand into social media space.

A particular issue that caught my interest was raised by these questions: "Will social media communities need to be more upfront with members about advertising expectations? In the future, what might an 'advertising contract' look like between community and member?"

The general answer we came up with was "It depends." An explicit contract need not be a top priority for advertising content that is purely entertainment, such as the Coke and Mentos viral video recently circulated on YouTube. Still, it is in advertisers' best interest to disclose their involvement with the production of the ad, or risk harsh consumer backlash. Content that influences consumer behavior (recommendations, for example), on the other hand, must absolutely be transparent in terms of authorship and motivation. Directly influential advertisements that hide their affiliations will inevitably be exposed, likely causing much more harm than good for brand equity.

In getting to the conclusion above, an interesting question arose concerning consumers' perception of advertising in social media. Someone mentioned the statistic that 40% of consumers say they willingly accept ads that are precisely targeted to them and the content they wish to pursue. In other words, consumers don't mind seeing ads they can really use. To borrow an analogy from the presentation by Organic's Chad Stoller, if social media is a party, advertisers will not be welcome unless they bring some beer.

On the other side of the same coin, however, extensive metrics are crucial to successfully targeting a consumer. We wondered to what extent consumers understand how closely their online behavior is tracked, or that marketers have access to a wealth of information about their personal activity online. This precise behavioral tracking would seem to defeat one of the primary tenets of social media marketing: that the consumer is in control. The consumer may have control over her purchasing decisions, but has little or no control as to what marketers can find out about her online behavior (depending on privacy software). This notion at least makes me uneasy – that Google knows every word I've searched for and every ad I've clicked on – and I would only assume the same is true for many people. One need only to look to the outrage that followed the discovery of AOL's search data published online to find support for my feelings of privacy invasion.

So, this seemingly creates a paradox: consumers want targeted, useful ads, but are probably uncomfortable with the amount of tracking – which is beyond their control – that is necessary to deliver those ads. Returning to the social media party analogy, people may be happy to have free beer delivered to their party, but they may also be pretty sketched out that some dudes who felt like coming had somehow found their personal address and invited themselves over.

A contract between community and member, then, would have to address this issue of give and take. To truly give consumers control, social media communications should have an opt-in choice for targeted ads. As such, consumers would be able to choose: either maintain complete privacy and consequently be exposed to irrelevant advertising noise, or give marketers free reign over your online behavior and reap the benefits of targeted ads. I think it depends upon the person: if you really wanted that extra case of beer, who cares where it came from or how it found you? But if you are more interested in spending some quality time with your tight-knit group of friends, it might really creep you out that those beer-bearing dudes found your house and had the nerve to knock at your door. An "advertising contract" between community and member, therefore, must be respectful of both types of people, and everyone in between.


Note: The Social Media Marketing Symposium May 9 was co-hosted by the Media Management Center and Kellogg School of Management. Hilary Gifford is a student at Northwestern University's School of Communication. For more insights into social media issues and possibilities, go here for 19 excellent white papers and a bibliography about various facets of social media and here for Limor Peer's thoughful commentary on social media and the news media.


What do you think? Please share your thoughts, experiences and reactions by clicking on the comment button below or by e-mailing Media Management Center at v-vahlberg@northwestern.edu.