Rob Saker's Blog

Twitter is a fascinating tool for an observing marketer.  I’ve been using Twitter to share thoughts and ideas on the meaningful, as well as mundane micro-blogs about which beers I’ve been trying and dog parks I’ve visited.  In my time on Twitter I have met many people that I would have otherwise have never met, that share common interests and who have influenced my thinking or behaviors.

I’ve also been noticing quite a few of the “social media experts” on Twitter.  In my experience, the majority are people with the agenda of promoting a product or company.  Nearly all of them also promote the wonder of Twitter as a corporate promotion tool.  None of these have influenced my behavior.

Marketers often become enamored with their specific area of interest, especially if it’s the latest “bright ‘n shiny” object.  I’ve held conversations with interactive media buyers who believe that ad buys on Facebooks are where they should be investing their entire spend, while social media experts are just as adamant about investing massive sums in Twitter.  Not surprisingly, the Facebook proponent was a young adult who used Facebook.  The social media experts are people who live on Twitter and are often using it as their primary social media outlet.

The challenge with this approach to media specifically is it’s their job to promote bias!  These marketers want people looking subjectively at their brand based on what they define as good.  Their intent is to control the entire conversation.  This is a good thing if they are in execution, but it becomes a problem when marketers carry this over to other areas of thinking.

These are typical examples of a type of proximity bias that everyone is guilty of at some point.  It’s where an availability and awareness of information that is a direct result of your personal engagement (the proximity) is mistaken for accuracy or relevance of the overall insight.  Because you use Facebook, you overstate the importance of Facebook to everyone else.

To demonstrate this, try this example:

1. Write down a list of the five greatest quarterback of all time (or vacation spots, etc.).
2. Next, identify the most important, measurable criteria you would use in selecting a quarterback.
3. Go to any research site that provides the statistics for quarterbacks throughout all history and identify the top 5 players by using your criteria.
4. Compare your lists.

The odds are your initial list mostly featured players from the past 25 years (and that Tom Brady or Brett Favre made your list) while your second list had players from throughout history and included people like Fran Tarkenton or Johnny Unitas.  If you had selected vacation spots, you would most likely have listed spots you had visited or were at least familiar.  It’s natural that people select these items as they have a familiarity with them, but it can impact your overall effectiveness in marketing.

The way to counter to proximity bias is to identify your objectives and let the information lead you to opportunities.  There are firms that do a great job with this.  Consumer Reports comes to mind as a company that does a great job of first establishing criteria and then evaluating products and services against those metrics.  Using this approach, Consumer Reports recently named the Hyundai Genesis top rated vehicle in the  ”Upscale Sedan” category, a surprise to many. 

This approach raises the question of how to ensure you are identifying the correct criteria with which to measure your alternatives.  There are multiple methods that can be used for identifying alternatives, and fortunately topics for many future posts.

I suspect the social media gurus will eventually be correct about Twitter in spite of their own actions.  It’s an interesting paradox.  There are many people who promote and use it, who clearly have an agenda, and are reliant on others using the tool to be successful.

And yet it’s true promise is in the exact opposite.  Twitter succeeds, and becomes more relevant, and a more effective promotional tool, when it connects agenda-less people who share common beliefs, attitudes, interests, or behaviors and who would never otherwise meet.

Bookmark & Share