A Social Media Debate: Rifle VS Shotgun
-
Upload
mathew-sweezey -
Category
Marketing
-
view
82 -
download
0
description
Transcript of A Social Media Debate: Rifle VS Shotgun
a social media debate on better ways to increase social engagement
VSRIFLE SHOTGUN
THEFACTS
Social marketing has changed, due to a few major factors. We need to talk about the best techniques to engage our social
audiences.
RIFLEwas good“Rifle” is the name given to the strategy of mastering a single social channel - it
favors special quality of content vs. quantity. This may no longer be the best way moving forward to reach your social
audience. Here is why…
CHANGEShappened
1. Reliable Reach went away 2. More competition in social world
from non-business related things3. More social channels than ever
before
Reliable Reach
Facebook’s Stock increased by 60% in Q2 of 2014 as
organic reach fell to all-time lows. Not a coincidence!
Died on all channels
Image by: dschwen.com
Now PaidReachFacebook and all other Social platforms make money off of taking away reliable reach. Twitter, Pinterest & other channels have followed.
Image by: dschwen.com
Competition forInfluence is upEvery time you log onto Facebook, there are 1500 messages waiting for you. You’re competing with Family & Friends.
Image by: dschwen.com
You can’t compete with this (organically)
More Social Channels…
Social engagement is now across multiple channels all at the same time - and mobile.
Image by: dschwen.com
IF NOT RIFLE ?Rifle favors more time spent on content, fewer releases of content, and fewer channels. But customers are on many channels, reach is now 2-4% of our fan base reliably via organic, and we are competing with a glut of highly personalized content. What are our options?
Image by: dschwen.com
SHOTGUN@Jbaer
Distributed Engagement
You must now post all the time, assuming you’ll only reach 2% to be able to reliably reach your audience.
ReachingYour fans is now a game of numbers.
Shotgun says:
More is the Way forward
It is better to hope you reach them, than not reach them at all. Shotgun says that
Quantity is better than Quality, because it’s a numbers game now.
Shotgun says:
Image by: dschwen.com
More channelsYou’ve got to go where your fans are, and the more channels you are on, the greater
chance you have of reaching them.
Shotgun says:
More postingShotgun says:
Posting at one time only gets your 2-4% reliably via organic. Then if you post 10x more, you can then reach 20-40% of your
fan base.
More ContentShotgun says:
Following the rule of limited engagement, you need to post
constantly to be able to fully engage your audience. So, more content is
needed for the Shotgun social engagement model.
RIFLE 2.0@msweezey
PaidReach
There is no RELIABLE reach at all, so don’t try for it. It’s not effective for reaching targeted goals. So, aiming for 2-4% without the ability to target is pointless.
Rifle 2.0 says:
Image by: dschwen.com
Targeted EngagementRIFLE 2.0 doesn’t say only one social channel, but rather multiple social channels in highly targeted ways.
Organic now
is a side
benefit, not a
tactic.
Rifle 2.0 says:
Better ValueWith Paid
If we abide by shotgun and post 10x more, then it will cost more in production. Shotgun also does not allow for targeting, but rather scatter blasting - which is not reliable.
So, RIFLE 2.0 suggests the best way to engage on social is via targeted paid marketing efforts, which allow for highly targeted ads, more precise tracking, and is a more repeatable strategy.
Rifle 2.0 says:
Additional Benefits
RIFLE 2.0 allows for better messages to highly targeted people, increasing fan engagement and increasing branding.
When combined
with organic keywords, RIFLE 2.0
helps increase organic reach
& SEO.
Side-by-Side Comparison
Rifle 1.0-Single Channel -Favors Quality vs Quantity-Requires an audience -Relies heavily on organic traffic-Has proven not to be effective in modern social engagement strategies
Shotgun-Multi-Channel -Favors Quantity vs Quality-Requires an audience -Relies heavily on organic traffic-Is effective in managing a large multi-channel social marketing campaign -Does require more content than before
Rifle 2.0-Multi-Channel -Favors Quality vs Quantity-Requires NO audience -Relies heavily on paid traffic-Is effective in managing a large multi-channel social marketing campaign -Does not require more content than before
Which is better for your brand?
Shotgun-Multi-Channel -Favors Quantity vs Quality-Requires an audience -Relies heavily on organic traffic-Is effective in managing a large multi-channel social marketing campaign -Does require more content than before
Rifle 2.0-Multi-Channel -Favors Quality vs Quantity-Requires NO audience -Relies heavily on paid traffic-Is effective in managing a large multi- channel social marketing campaign -Does not require more content than before
Detailed Comparison
RIFLE 2.0 SHOTGUN
Assumes a 2-4% organic engagement per social post on each channel.
Assumes a 0% organic social finding, and any organic reach is a side effect.
Requires a fan/follower base to begin.
DOES NOT require a fan base to begin.
DOES NOT require increased posting.
Requires a sizeable increase in posting.
Assumes random reliable reach, which you have no control over.
Assumes a paid advertising model, in which you have full control over reach.
Tracking results is highly skewed, because each post reaches a different audience.
Tracking becomes very easy and valuable, because you can have a test group.
Paid social posting is going to get more expensive.
Reliable reach is likely to continue to decline, but will always be free.
RIFLE 2.0 SHOTGUN
Cost Comparison
Average B2B total following is 100k
$100k in initial investment
Increase in posting requires increase in head count
Can start with 0 followers
$0 in initial investment
Additional head count of 1 to manage Rifle Strategy
$60k (per employee)4 more content marketers = $240k $60k
1 channel5 channels
RIFLE 2.0 SHOTGUN
Cost to reach 1k actions
$100k in initial investment $0 in initial investment
$240k in employee cost $60k
$0 ($.50 per) = $500 (x12)
Once a month for 12 months
$66k$340k
RIFLE 2.0 SHOTGUN
Cost to reach 1k actions
Begin with 112k Fans Begin with 12k fans
$240k in employee cost $60k
$0 $1k (x12) (100% increase)
Once a month for 12 months – Year 2
$72k$240k
No Guarantee Guaranteed
$72.00 per action$240.00 per action
RIFLE 2.0 SHOTGUN
When is ShotgunBetter?
Cost to reach 1k actionsFUTURE PROJECTIONS ON COST PER ACTION
5% INCREASE IN COST OF TALENT (YOY)
100% INCREASE IN COST OF ACTION (YOY)
WILL TAKE 10 YEARS FOR SHOTGUN TO BE LESS
EXPENSIVE THAN RIFLE ON A COST PER ACTION BASIS
Time
Cost
RIFLE 2.0 SHOTGUN
Cost to reach 1k actionsFUTURE PROJECTIONS ON COST PER ACTION
5% INCREASE IN COST OF TALENT (YOY)
100% INCREASE IN COST OF ACTION (YOY)
After 10 years, Shotgun will be the less expensive option for the same major demographics. This is
when Long-Tail Paid Social Targeting will come into play, just as Long-Tail SEO has.
.This assumes Status Quo on all aspects of the equation.
Time
Cost
RIFLE 2.0 SHOTGUN
ConclusionBoth are Good!
NON Targeted Hyper targeted to allow for more relevant messaging
Reporting is not accurate, because you can’t determine which 2% saw your post
Easy to report on due to the hyper targeting combined with pay per engagement
Smaller investment of fixed costs
Requires a much more rigorous posting and creating schedule
RIFLE 2.0 SHOTGUN
Is not Reliable because organic nature is subject to change.
Is 100% reliable; however, will increase in cost over time.
Negative affect of non- targeted placement is less engagement affects overall reach.
Targeted reach increases engagement, which increases organic reach.
Can pay off instantly.
Is a long-term play, due to the required fan base needed for sizeable returns.
RIFLE 2.0 SHOTGUN
Which will you use?