Results are In, Verdict Still Out posted by Jasmine Teer at Wednesday, April 01, 2009

Apparent in blogs across the web, social media is the PR du jour. Call the notary public, because it's that official.

But, the concept of social media as some aggrandizing power play we PR agencies have to master for our clients is still, to me, a question to be answered. How much can really be gained by power-tweeting our clients and answering, "What are you doing right now?" every 42 minutes? I wanted to explore this idea to see what social media has (or hasn’t) done.

I set up a survey for my Page One colleagues and found there are some conclusive benefits to stacking a client's (Tweet)deck with social media. The Survey Monkey results revealed these social media channels yield the best results for clients:

39.9% - BLOGS
33.3% - TWITTER
11.1% - SCREENCASTS
5.6% - VIDEO
5.6% - CONTESTS
5.6% - OTHER
0.0% - FACEBOOK
0.0% - LINKEDIN

My hypothesis is that social media works when it can entertain as well as inform. It engages in a way that traditional media can’t. Seeing a reporter's snide comment on a news story trumps reading his rendition of a press release when it comes to dishing out opinions. Delivery of information is faster, sometimes funnier, less formal and a lot more in your face.

Twitter, for example, allows people to find their inner prophet. Having actual followers, yes, that's right... followers... guarantees an audience who will validate your every thought (or so you hope). As humans, let alone PR agents, how are we not supposed to find the advantages in that?

When asked to rank the purpose of social media on a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being most important), my Page One colleagues listed:

9.0 - WEB TRAFFIC
8.5 - GROW COMMUNITY SIZE AND ENGAGEMENT
7.0 - PRODUCT DOWNLOADS
6.4 - MEASURABLE PR
5.5 - REACH NEW TARGET AUDIENCE
5.4 - LEAD GENERATION

So here's the bottom line. Social media is useful in PR. But it's not going to completely usurp traditional media. Segmenting social media from its traditional counterpart is as huge a mistake as asking Madoff for investment tips. At this agency, the most successful social media campaigns have intertwined social media and traditional media, because again, what is a video sitting on YouTube without a TechCrunch mention to drive traffic to it?

The future of (good) PR is finding the mix of both. I remain a skeptic about some of the grandiose claims of social media, but I need to better understand how we measure the nominal versus real benefits of social media.

With Google Analytics and a host of monitoring tools, we are getting better at locking in numbers to measure social media. I still don’t think that anyone in social media has gotten close to calibrating those measurements in terms of possibility and percent of market reached. As an economics major, I look (and more easily trust) numbers that reflect not just reach, but penetration. Sure, we can throw parties when we can tell clients we've gotten them 1,000 more unique visitors to their site in a day, or even that we've managed to increase their web traffic by 313 percent, but I like to look at the macro results. I want to know what the pool of potential targets was. Was it 5,000 or 250,000? And if we reached 1,000, how well is social media helping us penetrate the audiences we're actually targeting?

I’ll probably be a skeptic supporter of social media until it’s matured far enough to the point where this can be easily measured and assessed. As a CEO or CMO, this is the kind of question I would ask, and though social media is growing quickly, it can't answer these questions yet. But, it will, and probably soon.