Beware those obsessed with time normalization and comparing efforts to others.\u00a0 There is no blanket right or wrong answer to how much time you should spend for your digital PR and marketing.\u00a0 Those attempting to normalize numbers or\u00a0seek blanket answers\u00a0really don\u2019t get it and are looking at the wrong things.<\/p>\n
Communications firm CloudSpark decided to\u00a0put together\u00a0an altogether unscientific survey about how much time it takes to use social media weekly in an attempt to answer the normalization question.<\/p>\n
If you are at all versed in social media, web strategy and\/or statistical analysis you\u2019ll find their post completely meaningless.\u00a0 The fact that the commenters on the post blindly sing the praises of the survey data says a lot about our industry and the fact that almost no one digs into details.\u00a0 That\u2019s why I\u2019m here.<\/p>\n
They started with the following statement:<\/p>\n
Here\u2019s what we know: It takes at least 65 hours a week to maintain 4 social media channels for 1 brand.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Okay \u2013 take a moment to consider the absurdity of that statement they proclaim to \u201cknow.\u201d\u00a0 From surveying nearly 40 people.\u00a0 Without providing any context.\u00a0 Aside from the inherent flaw of conducting such a survey: their data, results and conclusions are all questionable.\u00a0 Let\u2019s go through the rest of their post and their methodology:<\/p>\n
While social media channels are considered \u201cfree,\u201d the time you need to create, develop, and maintain those channels is anything but free.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Well, of course not.\u00a0 Did anyone actually think that was the case?\u00a0 In what reality is time ever free?<\/p>\n
How\u2019d we get\u00a0the numbers? This spring we surveyed nearly 40 SM practitioners and asked about their hours invested in social media for their brands or the brands of their clients.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
That was about the extent of their methodology?\u00a0 \u201cNearly 40?\u201d\u00a0 Nice \u2013 lots of context there.\u00a0 Also they don\u2019t bother to break down who these people are.\u00a0 Despite the statistically irrelevant sample size, we have no context if they are working client side or agency, small business or large corporation, etc.\u00a0 It\u2019s just poor presentation of methodology and can\u2019t possibly be taken seriously.\u00a0 In fact this agency only succeeds in me taking their corporate blog as a whole less seriously.<\/p>\n
The rest of their methodology:<\/p>\n
In our survey, we defined the following:<\/p>\n
\n
- Creation<\/strong>\u00a0means setting up the page with initial content (does not include creative design team hours)<\/li>\n
- Development\u00a0<\/strong>means attracting followers, initial promotion\/launch<\/li>\n
- Maintenance<\/strong>\u00a0means listening, responding, posting, messaging, inviting<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/blockquote>\n
First, I cleaned up their paragraph to be readable.\u00a0 They could have made a list instead of writing that impossible to read sentence (you would think a social media consultancy would know how to make content, well, social).<\/p>\n
Second, CloudSpark calls the use of social media channels \u201cdevelopment\u201d and \u201cmaintenance.\u201d\u00a0 My problems with these terms aside, you have to love that they think these items are in different silos and attempts to segment them.\u00a0 Just re-read what they define each term as and you\u2019ll see what I mean.\u00a0 They think, for example, that attracting followings and creating content are in different buckets.\u00a0 Social media spammers much?\u00a0 This is why many in\u00a0social media hate marketing and PR\u00a0folk.\u00a0 Just FYI.<\/p>\n
The average ranges depended on the potential for the community size, initial promotional pool, campaign goals, etc.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
That\u2019s helpful, except they don\u2019t bother to give us any range to provide context for the survey data making this sentence meaningless.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s not even worth listing their results, because:<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n
- Their sample set lacks context and is statistically insignificant.<\/li>\n
- There is no normalization for good social media marketing because use, application, strategy and approaches all differ and are unique to each brand.<\/li>\n
- Look at those who are defining the\u00a0next generation of PR\u00a0and what they are doing.\u00a0 It\u2019s closer to being fluid and improvisational than as part of a rigid hours spent weekly.\u00a0 They are doing it because of\u00a0passion, not payment.\u00a0 The \u201cgoal time spent\u201d totally misses the point.<\/li>\n
- Their corporate blog barely has 10 posts over the last year (and in total).\u00a0 Do we really think they have enough experience to to package survey questions about this space?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
The framing of the question\/results misses the point<\/strong><\/p>\n
For the math challenged, that\u2019s a full time job for 1.5 people.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Yeah, social media takes time, that\u2019s obvious.\u00a0 But if you get all team members on board and work together you can, as a brand, get social.\u00a0 The fact that this consultancy sees it as the responsibility of one single person in the company or a single consultant shows almost a total misunderstanding of this.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Beware those obsessed with time normalization and comparing efforts to others.\u00a0 There is no blanket right or wrong answer to … <\/p>\n