Select Page

by Adam Gray | @AGSocialMedia | LinkedIn

So, if you have clicked through from my previous “rant” about my book parody then hello and welcome back, if you haven’t, you might want to read it here.

So, how can this be an easy problem to solve.

Well, the theory goes like this…

People buy from people. People (generally) don’t trust corporates as much as people, so an audience is never going to be as engaged by the company as by the people within. If you doubt that this is true as yourself this. Do you have a friend that works for a large company? If the answer is yes, do you believe him/her more or less than the company they work for?

See what I mean? You trust them because they are your friend.

When your friend posts something on one of the social networks are you more likely to read it is it is something they have written or something that they have shared?

See again? The important thing is that THEY are the reason you’re engaging.

Now think about this. Let’s assume that a reasonably smart person you know works for a large company, perhaps EY, or Accenture, or IBM or one of those kind of businesses and that they are on Twitter and have 500 followers. That’s a reasonable assumption because they have some smart opinions and have won the trust of their audience because of who they are. Let’s also assume that half of the employees of this company are in a similar position.

So the number of followers is:

employee count / 2 x 500 = 91,500,000

(Based on an “average number of employees for these three companies of 366,000)

By comparison these organisations’ headline Twitter account has an average of 397,000 followers.

I’m sure that even the most cynical amongst us can agree that 397k is a long way away from 91.5m even if the basis of the calculation is floored (which it isn’t). In fact taking the message to market through the staff gives a 230x greater reach should be pretty compelling in itself.

Now think back to a couple of paragraphs ago where we (sort of) agreed that people buy from people and therefore the individuals are more likely to be read, believed and trusted than the organisations…then the 230x actually represents a far larger value than that in terms of getting the message out there.

This is all, let’s be honest, pretty obvious stuff.

The arguments are not based on fiction but based on human behaviour and simple maths.

SAP as an example have only really dipped their toe in the social selling water and are already publicly saying that the can attribute €1bn of pipeline to social. We see organisation that we work with absolutely flabbergasted by the difference that going to market through social channels makes for them.

So, with 2019 approaching my suggestion is that you should try something new. Put in place a social programme across the organisation and see if you can empower and mobilise your staff to be better in this respect. Now is the time to do it because the general standard of social presences for both companies and individuals is woeful so there’s a great opportunity for you to appear head-and-shoulders above all your competition.

We are NOT an agency. We do not take your money and do your work for you. We teach you how to do this for yourselves. we empower your staff to go-out and advocate for you r company and be seen as the go-to person in their respective industries/sectors/regions.

In reality this is the only way forward.

Someone once said “this is a lesson that everyone needs to learn – you can learn it the easy way or you can learn it the hard way…but you will learn it!” That sounds like a perfect quote for this situation!

People who read this article also read these:

I would write 500 blogs…

Cher sang – ‘If I could turn back time.’ Well I can with my Time Tunnel Mk3.

The Digital Leadership Associates (DLA) – Marketing Flywheel

 

Share This